Vijay Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondents be directed to consider his case for the grant of employment to him on compassionate grounds on account of the fact that his mother expired while in service.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Smt. Simro Devi, mother of the Petitioner expired on 1.11.2004. At that time, she was serving as a Peon in Government Senior Secondary School, Tang, District Kangra. The Petitioner alleged that he and his family after the death of his mother were put in undue hardships and indigent circumstances and hence prayed for the grant of compassionate appointment.

The case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was recommended by the Principal of the School in June 2005 but on 25.3.2010, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee was not found to be indigent. One of the reasons for holding that the family is not indigent is the fact that the father of the Petitioner is himself an ex-serviceman drawing pension and further on account of the death of the mother also, death and other retiral benefits have been paid.

The State in its reply has stated that the case of the Petitioner is not covered under the policy for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds since the family of the Petitioner was not found to be in indigent circumstances.

A Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 (2) SLC 231 after considering the judgments of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and State Bank of India and Another Vs. Somvir Singh, held that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and if it is not shown that the family is in indigent circumstances, it cannot be said that the case of the Petitioner falls within the ambit of the scheme.

It is obvious that compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right. Here we are concerned with the case of a person both whose parents happened to be in public employment, one in the armed forces and the other a Peon in the school. The father of the Petitioner is still alive and it is more than obvious that the family is not in indigent circumstances. The father of the Petitioner is getting pension. The death and other retiral benefits in respect of the mother of the Petitioner have been paid and, therefore, the State was justified in rejecting the case of the Petitioner for the appointment on compassionate grounds.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.