PREMA PAPNEY vs GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CO

Alok Singh, J

Father of petitioner namely Sri Shiv Nandan Papney, was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent Corporation. He died in harness on

29.05.2008. Initially, mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. When nothing was done, petitioner, after attaining the age of

majority, moved an application seeking compassionate appointment on 04.04.2011, however, again no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner

had filed writ petition before this Court being WPSS No. 512 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 directed the respondents to consider the

case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 22.04.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Feeling

aggrieved, petitioner has again approached this Court.Â

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2011 (4) SCC 209 has held as under:

“20. Thus, while  considering  a  claim  for  employment  on  compassionate ground, the following factors have to be

borne in mind:

(i) Compassionate  employment  cannot  be  made  in  the absence  of  rules  or  regulations Â

issued  by  the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered  strictly in  accordance   with  the Â

governing scheme,  and  no  discretion  as  such  is  left  with  any  authority to make compassionate

appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii) An  application  for  compassionate employment  must   be  preferred  without  undue  delay Â

and  has  to  be  considered within a reasonable period of time.Â

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the

bread winner while  in  service.  Therefore,  compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by  way Â

of  largesse  irrespective  of  the  financial condition  of  the  deceased/ incapacitated employee's family Â

at  the  time  of  his  death  or  incapacity,  as  the case may be.

(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible  only  to one  of  the  dependants  of  the  deceased/ incapacitated

employee, viz. parents,  spouse,  son  or  daughter  and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only  to Â

the  lowest  category  that  is  Class  III  and  IV posts.â€​

Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2017 (Union of India Vs. Sima Banerjee) decided on 10.01.2017 has held that the

object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, as laid down by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.

State of Haryana 2 & Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 138 and in State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi 2003 (11) SCC 178, therefore, direction to give

compassionate appointment, several years after death, was not justified.

As per dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on

account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of

deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents

of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.Â

It is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment

is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of

compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non-grant of compassionate appointment,

claimant would face financial crisis and may die in starvation.Â

Father of the petitioner died on 29.05.2008; application seeking compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2011 and petition was filed in the

year 2017; therefore, in my view, after a lapse of about ten years, writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate

appointment to the petitioner seems to be unjustified. Therefore, relief sought cannot be granted.Â

Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed. CLMA No. 4734 of 2017 also stands disposed of.