Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition impugning the orders dated 14.03.2013 at Annexure P-10 as also order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P-15), whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected. Brief facts that would require notice are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Accountant in the office of Accountant General, Punjab and died in harness on 24.03.2004. At the time of death, deceased Sumitter Singh left behind legal heirs i.e. his widow and three sons including the present petitioner. It is further pleaded that Amarpreet Singh, i.e. the brother of the present petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2005. At that point of time, the petitioner had furnished an affidavit deposing that he would have no objection to his brother namely Amarpreet Singh being granted appointment on compassionate basis. It so transpires that the claim of the brother of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2005 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of his father. Such claim was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P-10). Upon the petitioner having secured some information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act as regards certain other appointments having been granted by the State on compassionate basis after the death of the father of the petitioner, he submitted yet another application as also legal notice, which has also been rejected in the light of the order dated 08.08.2013 at Annexure P-15.

Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-authorities in not having accepted the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and highly inequitable. It is contended that the petitioner is physically handicapped. Counsel further adverts to Annexure P-11, whereby information has been supplied under the Right to Information Act, whereby a number of dependents have been granted appointments on compassionate basis and wherein, the date of death of the concerned employee has been shown to be later in point of time to the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Counsel would argue that if such appointments have been given in relaxation of the policy regulating compassionate appointments, the same benefit should also enure to the petitioner.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment cannot be accepted.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.03.2013 at Annexure P-10 would reveal that the financial status of the family of the deceased namely Sumitter Singh, father of the petitioner was assessed in the year 2005 itself, when the brother of the petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis. It had been noticed that the family had received an amount of Rs. 5.5 lacs towards terminal benefits and deceased Sumitter Singh had left behind a 2.5 marla residential house and a 2.5 marla plot at Mullanpur, District Ropar, Punjab. The Competent Authority had referred to the letter dated, 19.02.2003, wherein a monetary limit had been fixed for considering the cases of Group ''C'' cadre for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same had been stipulated at Rs. 3 lacs. On such basis, the claim of the brother of the petitioner had been rejected. Admittedly, the order of rejection in respect of the brother of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was never challenged before any Competent Court. Suffice it to observe that the claim of the present petitioner on account of the death of his father in harness in the year 2004 cannot be taken on a higher pedestal to that of the claim made by his brother immediately upon the death of late Sh. Sumitter Singh. The same very grounds/basis would even hold good qua the present petitioner.

It is even otherwise well settled that compassionate appointment is not a right but is a concession. It is an exception to the normal scheme of appointment as envisaged under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, whereby a regular procedure of posts being advertised, criteria/eligibility conditions being stipulated and all eligible candidates being given a chance to compete is envisaged. Compassionate appointment cannot be seen as a mode of recruitment.

Even if it was to be accepted that certain other candidates have been granted appointment on compassionate basis in the light of information supplied under the Right to information Act at Annexure P-11, still the same would not vest a right in the petitioner to claim appointment. Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the ground of parity cannot be invoked to perpetuate an irregularity and illegality. Counsel has not been able to refer to any policy/instructions issued by the State on the subject of compassionate appointments under which his claim would stand covered.

There is yet aspect which has weighed with this Court to decline relief to the petitioner. The whole objective of grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sudden financial crises that has fallen upon the family on account of the death of the bread earner. By its very objective, compassionate appointment, if any, is to be considered in close proximity of the date of the death of the employee concerned. The prayer made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in a writ petition instituted in the year 2013 in relation to the death of his father that occurred in the year 2004 cannot be entertained. I find no infirmity in the impugned orders at Annexures P-10 and P-15 rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed.