Smt. Hansi Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and another

ALOK SINGH, J.

Husband of the petitioner was working as Work Agent with respondent no. 2. He died on 28.08.2012 leaving behind his wife â€" petitioner, herein

and son. On 12.09.2012, petitioner moved application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, petitioner moved several

representations but respondent no. 2 neither gave retirel dues to the petitioner nor gave compassionate appointment. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has

approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for

respondent no. 2.

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:

Â

(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to

be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate

appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii)Â An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of

time.

(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 of largesse irrespective of the

financial condition of the deceased/ Â incapacitated employee's family 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 the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.â€​

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.

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.

Since application seeking compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2012 and present petition is filed in the year 2017 and now, in the year

2018, when petitioner would have crossed the upper age limit to seek public appointment, writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide

compassionate appointment to the petitioner seems to be unjustified, at this stage. Therefore, prayer no. 1 cannot be granted. However, respondent no.

2 is directed to pay retirel dues, on completion of all the formalities, to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this judgment.

Writ petition stands disposed of finally.