Devesh Tripathi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

There is delay of 62 days in filing the Appeal, condonation whereof, is being sought vide I.A. No.1868/2017. For the reasons which find mention in the

application preventing the Appellant from filing the appeal within limitation, sufficient cause is made out; consequently, delay condoned. I.A.

No.1868/2017 stands disposed of.

Heard on admission.

The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 03/10/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.6970/2016; whereby, learned Singe Judge has declined to entertain

the claim for consideration for

compassionate appointment on the findings that the petitioner has failed to point out the policy for compassionate appointment applicable to

respondents' establishment, or any other statutory enactment in that behalf entitling the petitioner for consideration.

The exception is taken on the anvil of the Policy No.C-3/17/1/3/2010 dated 13/01/2011; whereon, following decision has taken by the State

Government:

^^2- 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd fnukad 13-122001 ds i'pkr fnoaxr gq;s 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ifjokj ds ik=rk j[kus okys ,sls vkosnd ftUgsa 07 o""kZ dh

vof/k O;rhr gks tkus ds dkj.k vuqdEik fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldh gS mudks fnukad 31-12-2011 rd vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq uohu vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dk volj

fn;k tk,A vuqdEik fu;qfDr iznku djus dh izfØ;k fuEukuqlkj jgsxh %&

(I) vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy;s ftl dk;kZy; esa vkosnd }kjk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tk;s og dk;kZy; lcls igys ;g ijh{k.k djs fd vkosnd r`rh; J.s kh

dk;Zikfydk@r`rh; J.s kh fyufidh;@prqFkZ J.s h esa ls fdl in ds fy;s vgZ gSA

(II) ;fn vkosfnr dk;kZy; esa ik=rk vuqlkj in fjDr gS] rks mls vuqdEik fu;qfDr vkj{k.k ds izko/kkuksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s nh tk;sA

(III) ;fn vkosfnr d;kZy; esa in fjDr ugha gS rks vkosnd dks ik=rkuqlkj r`rh; Js.kh dk;Zikfyd ¼yksd lsok vk;ksx ds dk;Z{ks= ds inksa dks

NksM+dj½@r`rh; J.s kh fyfid prqFkZ Js.kh ftldh Hkh ik=rk gks dk mYys[k djrs gq;s izdj.k ftyk dysDVj dks izsf""kr fd;k tk;sA

(IV) vkosnd dks r`rh; Js.kh fyfid vFkok prqFkZ J.s kh esa ls ftl in ij fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gS ml in ij ftyk dysDVj vkosnd dks ftys esa gh fdlh Hkh foHkkx

esa fjDr fyfid@prqFkZ J.s kh ds in ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr nsaxsA ftys esa r`rh; J.s kh ds ftl in dh vkosnd dh ik=rk gks] ds vuqlkj in fjDr u gksus ij vkosnd

dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vuqlkj lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd oxZ&3 vFkok oxZ&2 ds in ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq ftys esa fjDr in ,oa vkj{k.k ds eku ls lacaf/kr

eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r dks funsZ'k tkjh djsaxsA dysDVj ds funsZ'k ij eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r }kjk vuqdEik fu;qfDr nh tk,xhA ;fn

vkosnd lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd oxZ&03 vFkok oxZ&02 ds in ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr Lohdkj ugha djrk gS rks vkosnd dk vuqdEik fu;qfDr dk vkosnd lnSo ds fy,

uLrhc) dj fn;k tk,xkA

(V) ;fn vkosnd prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk j[krk gS vkSj ftys esa fdlh Hkh foHkkx esa in fjDr ugha gS rks lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds

lanfHkZr Kki fnukad 18-08-2008 dh dafMdk 10-6 vuqlkj izdj.k dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk,xkA**

Evidently incumbent was upon the person claiming for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground to have applied on or before

31/12/2011 from the issuance of order dated 13/01/2011; however, there is no material on record to establish that the Appellant filed an application

before 31/12/2011 in pursuance to order dated 13/01/2011, as would create any entitlement in his favour for consideration of appointment on

compassionate ground.

Even otherwise, trite it is that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but a privilege and a mode to salvage the family of an employee

who die in harness from instant financial penury. Thus where the family have survived for year and gracefully, no right accrues for appointment on

compassionate ground.

In Steel Authority of India Limited V. Madhusudan Das and others: (2008) 15 SCC 560, it has been held:

“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It

must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is

meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be

taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in

the posts which have fallen vacant.

Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a

right.â€​

In I.G.(Karmik) and others V. Prahlad Mani Tripathi: (2007)Â 6 SCC 162, it is observed:

“6. An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of employees of the State is governed by the rules framed under a statute or the proviso

appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the State is obligated to give effect to the constitutional scheme of

equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must conform to the said constitutional

scheme. This Court, however, while laying emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the

officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated while rendering services in the police department .

Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has

been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate

hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be

kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.â€​

In State of Chattisgarh and others V. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar:  (2009) 13 SCC 600, it has been held:

“12. This Court times without number has held that appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted as a matter of course. It

should be granted only when dependents of the deceased employee who expired  all of a sudden while being in service and by

reasons thereof his dependents have been living in penury.â€​

In State of Gujarat and others V. Arvind Kumar T.Tiwari and another: (2012) 9 SCC 545, it has been held:

“8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of

recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions

governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Such a category of employment itself, is an

exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment.

The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not

to confer any status upon it.â€​

In view of above pronouncement of law and the fact that the family had tide over years since 2005, no case is made out for

direction to respondents to consider the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground.

 Consequently, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.