Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And … on 13 December, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2943 of 2021
Reserved on: 03.12.2024
Decided on: 13.12.2024
Amritpal Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate
and Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate
for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, seeking quashing of the order dated 28.01.2019
(Annexure P-8). Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents
to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds in place of his father, who died in harness.
2. The brief facts as have been pleaded in the petition are that
the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Mukhtiar Singh joined the
respondent – PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as ‘PRTC’) as Conductor on 01.06.1979 and unfortunately, he died on
18.07.2001, while he was in service. The petitioner was a minor at that
point of time as his date of birth is 25.03.1991 and he was only 10 years
1 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
2
old at that time. He attained the age of majority of 18 years and applied
for compassionate appointment by submitting application dated
21.11.2009 (Annexure P-2). The mother of the petitioner also submitted
her affidavit to the effect that she has no objection if the petitioner is
given appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner again
submitted representation on 04.05.2010, seeking compassionate
appointment and since no action was taken on the said representations,
therefore, the petitioner sought information vide application dated
26.02.2018, under the RTI Act, 2005 and on the said application, reply
dated 27.02.2018, was given by the respondents that his Voter Card and
date of birth certificate be provided within ten days, which were
provided by the petitioner on 27.02.2018 itself. Again the petitioner
submitted application, under the RTI Act, seeking information about the
outcome of his claim for job on compassionate ground, to which reply
dated 16.05.2018 was given by the respondent – PRTC stating therein
that his application dated 04.05.2010 seeking compassionate
appointment has been considered and filed by the Additional Managing
Director and that the certificates/documents appended with the
applications submitted by the petitioner in the year 2009-10 were not
got attested nor he had produced the original certificates. Finally, the
claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2019
(Annexure P-8) by stating that the petitioner has applied for
appointment on compassionate ground after 09 years of death of his
father and as per the instructions of the Punjab Government in the
2 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
3
policy dated 21.11.2002, he could have applied for compassionate
appointment within one year from the date of death of his father and,
therefore, the same has been filed. Aggrieved against the said order, the
instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Short reply by way of affidavit of Ketan Kumar Chouhan,
Legal Advisor, PEPSU, has been filed on behalf of the respondents,
wherein it has been stated as under:-
“5 That with regard to the claim of the petitioner, it is
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana, reported in
1994 (4) SCC 138 held that the scheme for compassionate
appointment has been formulated to enable the family of
the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. It is a
settled proposition of law that mere death of an employee
in harness does not entitled his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the Public Authority
concerned has a right to examine the financial condition of
the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied,
that but for the provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to
the eligible member of the family. The object of the scheme
of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get
out the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the
death of the sole breadwinner.
6. That in pursuance to the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), the Government of Punjab
has framed scheme for compassionate appointments-2002
(Annexure P-9).
7. That a perusal of Clause 3 of the policy would reveal
that it is the widow of the deceased who has first right of3 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
4appointment on compassionate basis after the death of the
concerned employee. Clause 13 of the policy would further
provide that an application for seeking appointment on
compassionate basis is required to be submitted within a
period of six months to the appointing authority. In the
present case the widow of the deceased had not submitted
any application within the time framed for seeking
compassionate appointment for her or for reserving one
post for her son, so that the respondent corporation could
enter the name of the petitioner in the priority register
maintained by the respondent corporation of the
candidates seeking appointment on compassionate basis.
However, the fact remains that no such application was
submitted by the widow of the deceased to claim
compassionate appointment in the year 2001 i.e. the year
when her husband was expired. It is only on 04.05.2010
(Annexure P-4) i.e. after almost nine years, the petitioner
had approached the respondent corporation to seek
appointment on the basis of compassionate basis. Hence
the application seeking appointment on compassionate
basis by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the
respondent corporation being time barred.
8. That it is also pertinent to mention here that as
submitted above, the policy of compassionate appointment
was framed by the State Government with the purpose to
enable the family of the deceased to get over the immediate
financial crisis. Since the petitioner had submitted
application for compassionate appointment after a period
of nine years from the date of his death the same would
certainly mean that the family of the deceased had survived
after the death of the deceased for a reasonable time,
which would suggest that there was no financial crisis in
4 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
5
the family of the deceased employee, when the son of the
deceased employee has applied for compassionate
appointment in the year 2010. Hence on this ground as
well, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate
appointment at such a belated stage.
9. That it is an admitted fact that the father of the
petitioner had died on 18.07.2001 and the petitioner
suddenly woke up after 9 years to seek appointment on
compassionate basis. The petitioner failed to point out the
reasons as to why his mother had not submitted the
requisite application for seeking appointment on
compassionate basis immediately after the death of her
husband. The basic purpose of providing compassionate
appointment is to overcome the sudden financial crisis on
the family and the basic purpose of providing
compassionate appointment defeat when the same is being
claimed and provided after a lapse of considerable period
of time.”
4. In nutshell, it has been stated in the reply that the Punjab
Government has framed the scheme for Compassionate Appointment,
2002 and under Clause (iii) of the said policy, it is the widow of the
deceased, who has the first right for appointment on compassionate
basis after the death of the concerned employee. The widow (mother of
the petitioner) never applied for compassionate appointment at the time
of death of her husband and the petitioner has submitted application on
attaining the age of majority, after about 09 years of the death of his
father, whereas as per the Policy, the application could have been
submitted within a period of one year from the date of death, therefore,
the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
5 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the claim
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has wrongly been
rejected by the respondents as the petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment immediately on attaining the age of majority and there is
no delay on his part and, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on
compassionate ground, in lieu of the death of his father, who has served
the respondents as Conductor.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued
that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 2001 and at that
point of time, the petitioner was minor and the mother of the petitioner
did not apply for compassionate appointment and the petitioner for the
first time submitted the application on 21.11.2009 and whereas as per
Policy, the application can be submitted within a period of six months
and therefore, his claim has rightly been rejected.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The facts are not in dispute that the father of the petitioner
had died on 18.07.2001 and at that point of time, the petitioner was
minor as his date of birth is 25.03.1991 and he was about 10 years of
age at the time of death of his father. After the petitioner attained the age
of majority, he submitted the application for compassionate appointment
on 21.11.2009 along with affidavit of his mother to the effect that she
has no objection if the petitioner is offered appointment on
compassionate grounds. The said claim has been rejected by the
6 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
7
respondents vide order dated 28.01.2019 on the ground that the
petitioner had applied after 09 years of death of his father and whereas
as per instructions of the Punjab Government, he could have applied for
appointment within a period of six months from the date of death of his
father.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to mention the
object of the Policy dated 21.11.2002 framed by the State Government
for compassionate appointments. The same reads as under:-
Sub: Scheme for Compassionate Appointments-2002-
Grant of employment in the State Services on
compassionate grounds-Policy regarding.
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to address you on the subject noted
above and to say that at present the policy regarding grant
of employment in the State Services. Class III and IV on
compassionate grounds is mainly contained in circular
letter No. 11/27/94-2PPI/2364, dated 05-02-1996. This
policy was framed on the basis of the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in the case of
“Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and
others (1994) 4. S.C. cases (138). The Apex Court held that
the object of compassionate appointments is to enable the
penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the
sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. It
was further held that mere death of an employee does not
entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The
authority concerned must consider as to whether the family
of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial
crises resulting from the employee’s death. The offering7 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
8compassionate appointments as a matter of course
irrespective of the financial conditions of the family of the
deceased and making compassionate appointment in posts
above class III and IV, is legally impermissible. The
compassionate appointments can not be granted after a
lapse of reasonable period, which must be specified in the
rules The consideration for such employment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
The object being to enable the family to get over the
financial crises which it faces at the time of death of the
sole bread winner, the compassionate employment can not
be claimed and offered, whatever the lapse of time and
after the crises is over.
It has been considered appropriate that there is need
to review the whole policy on compassionate appointments
by taking a cue from the policy of Government of India and
to impose strict conditions so that compassionate
appointments are available only to very deserving cases,
Most of the vacancies that are available or accrue in direct
quota posts in various departments are consumed by these
compassionate appointments considerably reducing
vacancies for carrying out recruitments from the open
market. This has a direct reflection on the efficiency and
working of the departments as it restricts the Government
for making selections from a wider choice of candidates.
Imposition of a cap on compassionate appointments will
also protect the legitimate right of young qualified persons
who are waiting for their turn for being recruited in
various departments of the Government for years.
2. The State Government has decided to review the
policy on compassionate grounds strictly, on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
8 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
9
‘Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana’ referred
as above. The Government has reconsidered all the earlier
instructions issued from time to time on compassionate
appointments and has decided to review the policy to
provide the benefit only to deserving candidates as per
direction of the Apex Court referred in Para-1 above.
3. Henceforth, the objective of the Scheme is limited to
grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to persons
who fall in the categories mentioned below:-
(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(ii) A dependent member of the family of the deceased
Government employee, who dies in harness;
(iii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(iv) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; or
(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NOTE-I Dependent Family Member ‘means’
(a) Spouse; or
(b) Son (including adopted son); or
c) Un-married Daughter (including adopted
Daughter): or
(d) Un-married Brother or Un-married Sister in the
case of unmarried Government Servant, who was
wholly dependent on the Government Servant
member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death
in harness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13. PROCEDURE
(a) The performa as in Annexure-I may be used by
Departments/offices for ascertaining necessary
information and processing the cases of
compassionate appointment along with the
9 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
10
documents as given in Annexure-II, and submitted to
the Appointing Authority within a period of six
months from the date of death of disability of a
person/employee as the case may be. Appointment
must be made within a period of one year within the
Department and 2 years in other departments
through Re-deployment Cell. Genuine belated
requests with cogent reasons for compassionate
appointment can be entertained only within a period
of 5 years from the date of death or disability of the
employee person with the special approval of the
Personnel Department and Finance Department.
10. A perusal of the relevant Clauses of the Policy show that
the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious
family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crises
and not to provide employment. Mere death of an employee does not
entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The authority
concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased
employee is unable to meet the financial crises resulting from the
employee’s death and the compassionate appointment cannot be granted
after a lapse of reasonable period.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.
State of Haryana : 1994(3) S.C.T. 174, while considering the rights of
the family of the deceased employee has held that compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule of making appointments
in conformity with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In
the said judgment, it has been held as under :-
10 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
11“2. The question relates to the considerations which
should guide while giving appointment in public services
on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a
good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule,
appointments in the public services should be made strictly
on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it.
No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration
is neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at
liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However,
to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests
of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such
exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee
dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the
fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who
may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to
give a member of such family a post much less a post for
post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family to such
source of livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition
of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied,
that but for the provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the
eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and
IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over
the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest
posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and
valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable
treatment given to such dependent of the deceased
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object
11 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
12
sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No
other posts are expected or required to be given by the
public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered
in this connection that as against the destitute family of the
deceased there are millions of other families which are
equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule
made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and
affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned.
3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments
and public authorities have been offering compassionate
employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of
the financial condition of the family of the deceased and
sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is
legally impermissible.
4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a
position to appreciate judgments of some of the High
Courts which have justified and even directed
compassionate employment either as a matter of course or
in posts above Classes III and TV. We are also dismayed to
find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v.
Union of India, JT 1989(3) SC 570 : 1989(4) SLR 327 has
been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision
does not justify compassionate employment either as a
matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes
III and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly
pointed out that the State Government’s instructions in
question did not justify compassionate employment in
Class 11 posts. However, it appears from the judgment that
the State Government had made at least one exception and
provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the
specious ground that the person concerned had technical
qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such
exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is
contrary to the object of making exception to the general
rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate
employment is the penurious condition of the deceased’s
family. Neither the qualifications of his dependent nor the
post which he held is relevant. It is for this reason that we
12 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
13
are unable to understand the following observations of the
High Court in the impugned judgment:
“We are of the view that the extraordinary situations
require extraordinary remedies and it is open to the
Government in real hard cases to deviate from the
letter and spirit of the instructions and to provide
relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as a
matter of law that the Government cannot deviate
even minutely from the policy of providing
appointment only against Class III and Class IV
posts, would be to ignore the reality of life these
days. It would be ridiculous to expect that a
dependent of a deceased Class I Officer, should be
offered appointment against a Class III or IV post.
While we leave it to the Government to exercise its
discretion judiciously in making appointments to
Class I or 11 posts on compassionate grounds, yet a
word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted
that such appointments should be ordered in the
rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional
circumstances. As a matter of fact, we would
recommend that the Government should frame a
policy even for such appointments.”
5. It is obvious from the above observations that the
High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to
make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the
posts held by the deceased employees and above Classes
III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these
observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the
deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the
post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered
to cater to his status but to see the family through the
economic calamity.
6. For these very reasons, the compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The
consideration for such employment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future. The object
being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis
which it faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
14
claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after
the crisis is over.
7. It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for
compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by
the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the
Government or the public authority concerned. The
employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary
on an ad hoc basis.”
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the similar issue
in Union of India and another Vs. B. Kishore : 2011(3) S.C.T. 18 has
held as under: –
“6. In State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, 2010(4)
S.C.T. 77 : (2010) 11 SCC 661, elucidating the nature of
the scheme of compassionate appointments this Court
observed :-
“It is now well settled that appointment on
compassionate grounds 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
of the 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. An 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 the14 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
15applicant.”
13. To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others : 2011(4)
S.C.T. 218, wherein it has been held as under: –
“4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of
the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal
does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference of this Court. The Tribunal has rightly
observed that the compassionate appointment is not a
mode of entry into service but it is only to help the
surviving members of the family to overcome sudden
financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread
winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the cases of National Hydro v. Nanak Chand, 2004(4)
S.C.T. 724 : (2004) 12 SCC 487 : [2005 (1) SLR 1 (SC)]
and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika
Thirumalal 1997(1) S.C.T. 329 : 1996 (9) SC 197 : [1996
(6) SLR 21 (SC)]. Such an appointment cannot be secured
as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution. The father of the applicant-
petitioner expired on 19.7.2004. It cannot be concluded
that the situation created by his death is still prevailing and
continuing. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. 481 2009(3) S.C.T.
629 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 563 :
[2010 (1) SLR 261 (SC)] and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v.
State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) S.C.T. 669 : 2008(3)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 263 : (2008) 11 SCC 384
: [2008 (3) SLR 782 (SC)], has held that compassionate
appointment after lapse of number of years is
impermissible. There is, thus, no merit in the instant
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.”
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in The State
of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others : 2023 AIR Supreme
Court 1467, while considering the similar issue and after considering
15 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
16various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under :-
“Policy of Compassionate Appointment: The Rationale:
7. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for,
it makes no distinction between the young and the old or
the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of
birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being.
Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain.
Further, a deceased employee does not always leave
behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind
poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his
family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death
of an individual does not mean economic death for his
family? The State’s obligation in this regard, confined to its
employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes
and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an
eligible member of his family as an instance of providing
immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a
provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV
of the Constitution of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive
Principles of State Policy.
7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions
of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme
for compassionate appointment and the considerations that
ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate
appointment.
i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4
SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for
appointment on compassionate grounds, there
should not be any delay in appointment. That the
purpose of providing appointment on compassionate
grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the
death of the bread earner in the family. Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana,
(1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the
object of granting compassionate employment is to
enable the family of a deceased government
employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing
gainful employment to one of the dependents of the16 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
17deceased who is eligible for such employment. That
mere death of an employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the
Government or the public authority concerned has
to examine the financial condition of the family of
the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but
for the provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered
to the eligible member of the family, provided a
scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court
further clarified in the said case that compassionate
appointment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time after the death of a government
servant. That the object being to enable the family to
get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time
of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered after
lapse of considerable amount of time and after the
crisis is overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim
Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, (“Hakim Singh”) this
Court placed much emphasis on the need for
immediacy in the manner in which claims for
compassionate appointment are made by the
dependants and decided by the concerned authority.
This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten
that the object of compassionate appointment is to
give succour to the family to tide over the sudden
financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on
account of the untimely demise of its sole earning
member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not
be justified in directing appointment for the
claimants therein on compassionate grounds,
fourteen years after the death of the government
employee. That such a direction would amount to
treating a claim for compassionate appointment as
though it were a matter of inheritance based on a
line of succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta,
AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate appointment to be considered
17 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
18
reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a
sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased
as a result of death of an employee who had served
the State and died while in service. It was further
observed that appointment on compassionate
grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and
cannot be made available to all types of posts
irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased employee.
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court
on the principle that appointment on compassionate
grounds is given only for meeting the immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by
reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish
Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When
an appointment is made on compassionate grounds,
it should be kept confined only to the purpose it
seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for
endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the
same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz
Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11
SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment
on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the
deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed
Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court
were that the government employee (father of the
applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The
application was made by the applicant after four
and half years in September, 1991 which was
rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed
in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench
decided the matter, more than fifteen years had
passed from the date of death of the father of the
applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts
were relevant and material as they would
demonstrate that the family survived in spite of
death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held
18 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
19
that granting compassionate appointment after a
lapse of a considerable amount of time after the
death of the government employee, would not be in
furtherance of the object of a scheme for
compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr.
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was)
observed that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule that appointment to
any public post in the service of the State has to be
made on the basis of principles which accord with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis
of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a
deceased employee may be placed in a position of
financial hardship upon the untimely death of the
employee while in service. That it is the immediacy
of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to
allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The
pertinent observations of this Court have been
extracted as under:
“41. Insofar as the individual facts
pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it
has emerged from the record that the Writ
Petition before the High Court was instituted
on 11 May 2015. The application for
compassionate appointment was submitted on
8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the
Additional Secretary had required that the
amount realized by way of pension be included
in the income statement of the family. The
Respondent waited thereafter for a period in
excess of seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has
emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need of
providing immediate assistance to the family
of the deceased employee. This sense of
immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the
part of the dependant in seeking
compassionate appointment.”
19 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
20
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment
makes a departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment to a post by following a
particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a
provision enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated
objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased
to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
source of recruitment. The reason for making such a
benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector
undertaking is to see that the dependants of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of
livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased
to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or
offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is
over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is
improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in
financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in
mind including the income of the family, its
liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by
the family, the age, dependency and marital status of
its members, together with the income from any
other source.
7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of
compassionate employment is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the
death of the bread-earner which has left the family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure20 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
21humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a
provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for
such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it
would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment
to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis
which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has
been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act
with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning
compassionate appointment because on failure to do so,
the object of the scheme of compassionate would be
frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since
the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of
immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would
cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would
be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the
authorities in determining as to whether a case for the
grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for
consideration.
7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a
claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of
the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends
meet without one of the dependants of the deceased
employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The
financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the
time of the death of the deceased, is the primary
consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision
in the matter.”
15. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tinku vs State of
Haryana and others”, 2024 INSC 867, while considering the similar
question has held as under:-
21 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673CWP No.2943 of 2021
22
14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such
policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with
an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing
destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the
general rule in favour of the family of the deceased
employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration
the services rendered by such employee and the consequent
legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change
in status and affairs of the family because of the
unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread
earner.
15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give
immediate succour to the family. When seen in this
conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the
date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a
dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per
the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of
Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or
illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is
not a vested right.
16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the
Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate
death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been
rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High
Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of
the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.
17. The claim of the Appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds having been found to be not
sustainable, an aspect that has come to light which
requires consideration as has been put forth by the learned
Counsel for the Appellant, is with regard to the grant of ex-
gratia financial assistance. This is asserted in the light of
22 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:161673
CWP No.2943 of 2021
23
the fact that the claim of the Appellant was pending
consideration for compassionate appointment for long with
the respondents, and the same had finally been decided on
28.04.2009 by rejecting the same and that too primarily on
the ground that the said claim is time barred. It is further
stated that in the impugned Order dated 28.04.2009 that
there is no provision for providing job under the ex-gratia
scheme in the 2006 Rules.
16. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the father of
the petitioner died on 18.07.2001 and the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on 21.11.2009 i.e. more than 08 years
(approx) and, therefore, his claim has rightly been rejected by the
respondents, being time barred. Even otherwise, a period of about 20
years has elapsed and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not
permissible under the law because the consideration for such
employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in
future, after the crisis is over. The object of the Policy is to enable the
family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the
death of the sole breadwinner.
17. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present
petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
13.12.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
23 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2024 07:32:21 :::