Jadunath Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

By way of this petition the Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father late Shri Ram Singh who died on 23.6.2002 while working as Timber Mechanic in a colliery under the Coal India Ltd.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 13.1.2004 the Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment before Respondent No. 6 but his application was rejected on 21.6.2006 vide (Annexure P-2) on the ground that he was not dependant on his father during his life time and therefore he cannot be given compassionate appointment. He submits that the Petitioner''s family is facing financial hardship and therefore he is entitled fort compassionate appointment. He further submits that the fact that the Petitioner is the son of the deceased employee is not disputed because he was given gratuity and once the identity of the Petitioner is not disputed, he ought to have been given compassionate appointment.

On the other hand counsel for the Respondents submits that as per the policy of the Respondents 2 to 6 Petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment for the reason that he was never shown by the deceased to be dependent on him, in the service record. He submits that dependants of the deceased employee have already been paid a sum of Rs. 4,90,000 as CMPF, Rs. 1,61,539 as gratuity, Rs. 30,000 as ICS. This apart, an amount of Rs. 1,012 per month is being paid as family pension and thus according to the counsel for the Respondents the family of the deceased employee is not having any financial crunch and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He submits that the Petitioner died on 23.6.2002 but the application for compassionate appointment was made on 13.1.2004 which shows that the family of the deceased employee is not having any financial constraint. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, in which it has been held by the Supreme Court that the very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. The benefit is given to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial constraint. The Supreme Court further went on saying that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service.

In this case, it is not in dispute that the deceased employee died on 23.6.2002 and the application for compassionate appointment was made by the Petitioner on 13.1.2004. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was never shown as the dependant on his deceased father. This apart, subsequent to the death of the deceased employee, handsome amount was given by the Respondents to the family of the deceased employee on various heads. While comprehensively dealing with the compassionate appointment, in the matter of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar and Ors. AIR 2009 SCW 4427, among other things it has been held by the Apex Court that the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Thus if all these things are encompassed within the aforesaid legal terra firma, the Petitioner, in no way, can be held entitled to the compassionate appointment. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment, as per the aforesaid as well as series of other judicial pronouncements is to make the bereaved family members to tide over the sudden financial constraint occurred due to the untimely death of the breadwinner of the family. Unfortunately, position in this case is quite different.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual essay, foundation for compassionate appointment is lacking in this case. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed as such.