Meghraj Sinha vs State of C.G. and Others

P. Sam Koshy, J.—Through the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has claimed for compassionate appointment with the Respondents on account of death of his father that took place on 26.9.1998. Grievance of the Petitioner is that his father who was in services with the Respondents had died in harness on 26.9.1998 and since then the Petitioner has been pursuing his application and request to the Respondents for grant of compassionate appointment.

Needless to mention that the present writ petition has been filed after about 12 years from the date of death of the deceased employee which took place on 26.9.1998 and it is also not a case where the Petitioner at the relevant point of time was a minor which prevented him from filing the present writ petition. The object for grant of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis which the family incurs on account of death of the sole earning member of the family. That if the Petitioner is able to sustain himself for a period of about 12 years that itself is sufficient to show that there was enough means to sustain and further the return of the Respondents also shows that the elder brother of the Petitioner was in employment which would also show that there was other means of sustenance in the family.

It is right at this juncture to refer to the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Raj Kumar, , wherein it has been held in paragraphs 8 & 9 that:

"8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate rounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand, it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way the of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.

Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependant family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfilment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply."

In State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin, , the Supreme Court has categorically observed in paragraph 11 as under:--

"11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Smt. Phoolwati Vs. Union of India and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh, . In Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision."

The Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, has held in paragraph 11 as under:

"11......It is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several other ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."

In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, , the Supreme Court has held that the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning members.

For the foregoing reasons and also in the light of the judgements referred to in the preceding paragraphs, in the opinion of this court no good ground is called for interfering with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.