As per case facts, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his mother, a Librarian, died in service. His sister initially applied for compassionate appointment but later secured a Staff Nurse ...
1
CWP-6741 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6741 of 2022
Jaipal Singh Brar
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
….Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 06.05.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 19.05.202 6
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the
website
19.05.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
Full
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full
judgment, and reasons thereof
Not
applicable
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR
, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus for directing the respondents to consider his case for
appointment on compassionate grounds in the Department of Education
(Schools) on account of death of his mother – Smt. Manjit Kaur on
08.10.2012, while she was in service as Librarian and to consider his
appointment from the date of application dated 20.10.2019, with all
consequential benefits.
2
CWP-6741 of 2022
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in
the petition, are that mother of the petitioner, Smt. Manjit Kaur, was
working as Librarian in Government Senior Secondary School (Boys),
Kotakpura, District Faridkot, and unfortunately died on 08.10.2012
while in service, leaving behind her husband, Sh. Surjit Singh; a
daughter, Ms Ravneet Kaur and the petitioner as her legal heirs. The
petitioner possesses the qualification of MBA (Finance), which he
acquired in the year 2008 from the Punjab Technical University,
Jalandhar. At the time of death of his mother, sister of the petitioner Ms.
Ravneet Kaur, who was possessing the qualification of B.Sc. Nursing,
applied for appointment on compassionate grounds as a Nurse in the
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. However, her claim
to the said post was not accepted on the ground that mother of the
petitioner was working against a Group ‘C’ post and whereas in the
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Nurse is a Group ‘B’ post
and she may opt for any post in Group ‘C’. In response thereto, the
sister of the petitioner again submitted an application dated 13.05.2014,
requesting respondent No.4 to forward her case to the competent
authority for appointment on compassionate grounds against the post of
Senior Laboratory Attendant in the Department of School Education
itself. Accordingly, revised case of Ms. Ravneet Kaur was sent to
respondent No.2, for appointment to the post of Senior Laboratory
Attendant. However, no action was taken by respondent No.2 and in the
3
CWP-6741 of 2022
meanwhile, on 30.06.2016, Ms. Ravneet Kaur came to be appointed as a
Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, at
her own by way of direct recruitment (as per State reply, date is
mentioned as 19.05.2016). She is now married and has her independent
family. It has further been pleaded that during the aforesaid period,
father of the petitioner suffered a brain haemorrhage in the year 2017
and remained admitted in hospital and the petitioner being only son,
remained busy in taking care of him. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted an application on 20.10.2019 to respondent No.4 for
consideration of his case for appointment as Clerk on compassionate
grounds. Upon receipt of the case of the petitioner, respondent No.3
sent back the case of the petitioner to respondent No.4 to obtain self-
declaration from Ms. Ravneet Kaur about her no objection in
considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds. On 21.10.2020, Ms. Ravneet Kaur gave self-declaration in
writing that she has no objection if the case of the petitioner is
considered for appointment on compassionate grounds (Annexure P-2).
Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.4
to respondent No.3 for further necessary action, which was forwarded to
respondent No.2, vide memo dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure P-3), and
when no action was taken by respondent No.2, petitioner submitted a
representation to the Education Minister, Punjab, for consideration of
his case, followed by a legal notice dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure P-4)
4
CWP-6741 of 2022
through his counsel. On the said legal notice, there is a correspondence
between respondents No.3 and 2, vide letter dated 04.02.2022, wherein
it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected. Hence, the present petition.
3. Reply by way of affidavit of Mewa Singh, District
Education Officer (S.E.), Faridkot, has been filed on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 4, wherein it has been stated as under: -
“2. That in this regard It is respectfully submitted that
Smt. Manjeet Kaur mother of the petitioner was working as
a Librarian at Government Senior Secondary School
(Boys), Kotkapura she died on 08.10.2012 while in service
leaving behind her husband Sh. Surjit Singh a daughter
Ravneet Kaur and petitioner as legal heirs.
3. That sister of the petitioner Ravneet Kaur submitted
her application on dated 13.05.2014 requested the
respondent no. 4 Government Senior Secondary School
(Boys), Kotkapura to forwarded her case to the competent
authority for appointment on compassionate ground of the
post of Senior Laboratory Attendant in the Department of
School Education, Government of Punjab. That answering
respondent sends her case for appointment as Senior
Laboratory Attendant on compassionate ground to Director
Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab. That on dated
19.05.2016 sister of the petitioner Ravneet Kaur becomes
appointed as Staff Nurse in the department of Health and
Family Welfare by way of Direct Recruitment. So the case
of the sister of the petitioner on appointment on the
compassionate ground as Senior Laboratory Attendant
becomes infructuous.
5
CWP-6741 of 2022
4. That after claim of the Ravneet Kaur (sister of the
petitioner) become infructuous petitioner submitted his
case on 20.10.2019 to respondent no. 4 in Government
Senior Secondary School (Boys), Kotkapura for
appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of
Clerk. That the respondent no. 4 forwarded his case to the
answering respondent for consideration. That the
answering respondent forwarded to the competent authority
for appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of
clerk. That the respondents no. 2 rejected her case on the
ground that petitioner case was not covered according to
the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab
Department of Personnel (Personnel Policies-II Branch) in
dated 21st Nov, 2002 (Annexure P-6) because petitioner did
not apply his case of within the time limit as prescribed in
the section 13. Which was given below: -
"The performa as in Annexure-I may be used by
Departments/Offices for ascertaining necessary
information and necessary the case of compassionate
appointment along with the documents as given in
Annexure P-11 and submitted to the Appointing Authority
within a period of 6 months (which was further extended
from six months to one year vide letter no 11/99/02-
4PB2/18086 dated 28 dec 2005 by the department of
personnel) from the date of death or disability of
person/employees 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
6
CWP-6741 of 2022
the employee person with the special approval of the
Personnel Department and Finance Department.
(b) Department office should depute any senior official
to meet the members of the family of the Government
servant in question immediately after his death to advise
and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate
grounds. The applicant should be called in person at the
very first stage and advised in person about the
requirements and formalities to be completed by him,
within a period of 6 months.
(c) All application for appointments on compassionate
grounds should be considered in the light of these
instructions and appointments be made by the Appointing
Authority in all departments. To solve the complicated case
a committee of 3 officers one Chairman and 2 members n
the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director be constituted in
each Departments. The committee may meet during the 2nd
week of every month to consider case received during the
previous month. The applicant may also granted personal
hearing by the Committee, if necessary, for better
appreciation of the fat of the case.
(d) Recommendations of the Committee should be placed
before the competent authority for the decision. If the
competent authority disagrees with the committee's
recommendation, the case may be referred to the next
higher authority for a decision.
(e) In case of non-availability of posts in the
Department, the matter may be taken up with the Re-
deployment Cell in Personnel Department which will
adjudge the eligibility and suitability of the candidates in
the meeting of the Committee already constituted for the
7
CWP-6741 of 2022
purpose and recommend the name of the candidates to
different departments for compassionate appointments.
5. That from the above-mentioned paragraph it is
cleared that death of the mother of the petitioner taken
place on dated 08.10.2012 and petitioner applied his case
on dated 10.12.2019 for appointment for the post of clerk
on compassionate ground. So, the petitioner is not entitled
to any relief from the Hon'ble Court.
6. That it is respectfully submitted that Government of
Punjab vide circular letter no. 11/105/98-4PP2/14620
dated 21st November, 2002 (Annexure P-2) issued scheme
for compassionate appointments. This policy was framed
on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India delivered in the case of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal
Versus State of Haryana and others (1994) (S.C. cases
138)". The Apex Court held that objective of the
compassionate appointments is to the enable the penurious
family of the decease employee to tide over the sudden
financial crisis and to provided employment. It is further
held that mere death of an employee does not provide
employment. It was also held that mere death of an
employee does not entitled his family to compassionate
appointment. The authority must concerned as to whether
the family of the deceased the employee is unable to meet
the financial crisis resulting from the employee death.”
4. In nutshell, the stand taken by the respondents in the reply
is that after the death of the mother of the petitioner, who was working
as a Librarian in the respondent/department, the claim of the sister of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment was under process.
However, on 19.05.2016, she came to be appointed as Staff Nurse by
8
CWP-6741 of 2022
way of direct recruitment and, therefore, her case for compassionate
appointment as Senior Laboratory Attendant became infructuous. It is
further the stand of the respondents that the petitioner submitted his
claim for compassionate appointment on 20.10.2019 seeking
appointment to the post of Clerk whereas as per instructions of the
department, a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be
submitted within a period of six months, which was further extended
from six months to one year vide letter dated 28.12.2005, issued by the
Department of Personnel, (as referred above) from the date of death or
disability of person or employee, as the case may be and the
appointment is to be made within a period of one year within the
department and two years in other departments through re-employment
cell. Genuine belated requests for compassionate appointment,
supported by cogent reasons, can be entertained only within a period of
five years from the date of death or disability of the employee, subject
to special approval of the Personnel and Finance Departments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the
death of the mother of the petitioner on 08.10.2012, her sister submitted
an application for compassionate appointment on 16.11.2012 as Nurse,
however, the said claim was not accepted and the sister of the petitioner
revised her claim for appointment to the post of Senior Laboratory
Attendant and while the same was pending consideration with the
department, she was appointed on 30.06.2016 as Staff Nurse by way of
9
CWP-6741 of 2022
direct recruitment. Thereafter, father of the petitioner suffered brain
haemorrhage in the year 2017 and after he recovered, the petitioner
submitted his claim for compassionate appointment to the post of Clerk
on 20.10.2019. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner
to claim compassionate appointment.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that
compassionate appointment is an extraordinary concession and not an
alternative stream of public recruitment. The fact that the family
survived for seven years (2012 to 2019) without the mother's income
proves the absence of immediate financial penury. Therefore, present
petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well
settled. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right nor a mode of
regular recruitment. It is an exception carved out to the normal rule of
appointment through open competition, intended only to provide
immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee who dies in
harness leaving the family in penury. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has consistently held that compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed after lapse of considerable time since
the very purpose of such appointment is to relieve the family from
10
CWP-6741 of 2022
sudden financial distress caused by the death of the breadwinner. Once
the crisis is over, the claim loses its substratum.
9. In the present case, the employee (mother of the petitioner)
died on 08.10.2012. The petitioner admittedly submitted his application
only on 20.10.2019, i.e., after about seven years from the date of death
of the employee, whereas as per instructions of the department, the
claim for compassionate appointment is to be submitted within a period
of six months, which was further extended from six months to one year
vide letter dated 28.12.2005, issued by the Department of Personnel,
from the date of death or disability of person or employee, as the case
may be and the appointment is to be made within a period of one year
within the department and two years in other departments through re-
employment cell. Such enormous delay strikes at the very root of the
scheme of compassionate appointment.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chief Commissioner,
Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and others v. Prabhat Singh,
2013(2) S.C.T. 58 has held as under: -
“13. Most importantly, the High Court did not take into
consideration one of the most significant reasons depicted
in the orders passed by the appellants (dated 5.1.2006 and
22.5.2008), namely, that under the OM dated 5.5.2003
appointment on compassionate ground was permissible
within a period of three years from the date of death of the
concerned employee in harness. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the
father of Prabhat Singh had died on 2.3.1996. The
11
CWP-6741 of 2022
candidature of Prabhat Singh, for appointment on
compassionate ground, under the OM dated 5.5.2003 could
have been considered only till 1.3.1999. Thereafter,
Prabhat Singh was rendered ineligible for appointment on
compassionate ground. Pointedly, on aforesaid ground the
Review Committee constituted by the appellants to
consider the claims of dependents of employees who had
died in harness, vide an order dated 21.9.2007, had
excluded the names of persons including Prabhat Singh,
from the list of pending cases for appointment on
compassionate ground, because they could no longer be
appointed on compassionate ground, since more than three
years had expired after the death of the concerned bread
winner in harness. Had the High Court or the Tribunals
applied their mind to the aforesaid pre-condition for
eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground, none
of the directions issued by the High Court or the Tribunals
would have been issued. Such directions could have been
issued only when the party approaching the Tribunal or the
High Court had established a prima facie case, by
demonstrating fulfillment of the terms and conditions
stipulated in rules/regulations/policy instructions/office
memoranda, relevant for such consideration. Had the
aforesaid simple exercise been carried out, it would not
have been necessary to examine the matter again and
again. In the instant case, on a simple issue of
compassionate appointment, there have been repeated
rounds of litigation, the first time before the CAT-
Allahabad Bench, then before the CAT-Lucknow Bench,
and thereafter, before the High Court. From the High Court
the matter has now been carried to this Court. If only the
12
CWP-6741 of 2022
pre-requisite eligibility of Prabhat Singh for appointment
on compassionate ground had been examined, it would not
have been necessary to examine the matter again, and yet
again. The instant observations have been recorded only to
demonstrate how judicial time at different levels has been
wasted by entertaining a frivolous litigation. Surely,
because Prabhat Singh had approached a judicial forum
nine years after the death of his father, whereas,
appointment on compassionate ground is permissible only
within three years of the death of the bread winner, the
matter deserved to have been rejected at the stage of first
entertainment.
14. We are constrained to record that even compassionate
appointments are regulated by norms. Where such norms
have been laid down, the same have to be strictly followed.
Where claims for appointment on compassionate ground,
exceed, the available vacancies (which can be filled up by
way of compassionate appointment), a selection process
has to be adopted by the competent authority. The said
process, necessarily has to be fair, and based on a
comparative compassion gradient of eligible candidates, or
on some such like criterion having a nexus to the object
sought to be achieved. In other words, where there are two
candidates but only one vacancy is available, there should
be a clear, transparent and objective criterion to determine
which of the two should be chosen. In the absence of a
prescribed criteria, a fair selection process has to be
followed, so that, the exercise carried out in choosing one
of the two candidates against a solitary available vacancy,
can be shown to be based on reason, fair-play and non
arbitrariness.
13
CWP-6741 of 2022
15. The very object of making provision for appointment on
compassionate ground, is to provide succor to a family
dependent on a Government employee, who has
unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family
suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the
absence of its sole bread winner. Delay in seeking such a
claim, is an ante thesis, for the purpose for which
compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in
raising such a claim, is contradictory to the object sought
to be achieved. The instant controversy reveals that even
though Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of the applicant
(Prabhat Singh) seeking appointment on compassionate
ground had died on 2.3.1996, Prabhat Singh sought
judicial redress, for the first time, by approaching the CAT-
Allahabad Bench in 2005. By such time, there was no
surviving right for appointment on compassionate ground
under the OM dated 5.5.2003. As already noticed above,
appointment on compassionate ground under the OM dated
5.5.2003 is permissible within three years of the death of
the bread winner in harness. By now, sixteen years have
passed by, and as such, there can be no surviving claim for
compassionate appointment.
16. Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any
sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for
compassionate appointments, without reference to the
prescribed norms. Courts are not supposed to carry Santa
Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of
compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's
intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that
every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion,
wherein directions are issued for appointment on
14
CWP-6741 of 2022
compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family
requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury
a truly indigent, destitute and impoverish family. Discretion
is therefore ruled out. So are, misplaced sympathy and
compassion.”
11. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v.
State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 301 has held as under: -
"3......The very object of appointment of a dependent of the
deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve
unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the
family by sudden demise of the earning member of the
family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in
which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be
said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained
majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention
is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of
the dependent of a deceased Government servant which
cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules."
12. A Division Bench of this Court in Bijender Singh v. State
of Haryana, 1999(3) SCT 98 has held as under: -
"20. One of the principles which is clearly discernible
from the various judicial precedents referred to above, is
that the minor dependent of deceased employee cannot
claim appointment as of right on his/her attaining majority
and unless the rules or the administrative instructions
which regulate ex gratia employment/compassionate
appointment provide for consideration of the claim of such
dependent after he/she becomes major, the Court cannot
issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the public
employer to appoint such dependent after lapse of many
15
CWP-6741 of 2022
years. It is also consistent view of the Courts that long time
gap between the date of the death of the employee and the
date of submission of application by an eligible dependent
is sufficient to draw an inference that the family of the
deceased was not in dire need of assistance in the form of
ex-gratia employment/compassionate appointment."
13. This Court while considering similar issue in Tinku v. State
of Haryana and others, 2021(4) SCT 18 has held as under: -
“8. It is well settled that appointment to public office is
required to be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory
requirement of the Constitution. Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule. Provision
has been made in order to help the bereaving family
immediately, who has lost its bread earner, to tide over the
immediate crisis. Compassionate appointment is not a
right but a concession. A government/public employment
is not a hereditary office. Such provision has been made to
provide immediate succor to the dependents of the
deceased. Moreover, it is also well settled that the
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of right especially after a passage of time. Reference in
this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
(1994) 4 SCC 138.
14. On the basis of case laws decided earlier, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and
others, 2025(5) SCC 712 has laid down certain principles for
compassionate appointment and observed as under: -
16
CWP-6741 of 2022
“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
17
CWP-6741 of 2022
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 pure
humanitarian 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.
18
CWP-6741 of 2022
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.
7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in
the first instance, regarding whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be considered after a
delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of
the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or
the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of
immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have
changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the
government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or
other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that
for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the
deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by
availing gainful employment from some other source.
Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as
noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to
treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though
it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of
succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since
compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the
same is relative to the financial condition and hardship
19
CWP-6741 of 2022
faced by the dependents of the deceased government
employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for
compassionate appointment may not be entertained after
lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of
the government employee.”
15. Further, the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Parwati Devi
and another v. Director, (G) & Nodal Officer (PG), Ministry of Mines,
Geology Survey of India and others, 2022 SCC Online Raj 410,
relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
as under: -
“14. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of "Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
v. Nirval Singh, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 774" that delay
in pursuing claim/approaching court would mitigate
against claim for compassionate appointment as very
objective of providing immediate amelioration to family
would stand extinguished.
x x x x
16. In the case of "State of J & K & Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed
Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766", the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the delay and laches in case of
appointment on compassionate ground. By dismissing the
claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which
was made after a period of four and a half years of the
death of the deceased employee, it was held that the
appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to
the general rule. An appointment to public offices should
be made on the basis of competitive merits. It was further
observed that once it is proved that inspite of the death of
20
CWP-6741 of 2022
the breadwinner, the family survived and the substantial
period is over, there is no need to make appointment on
compassionate ground, at the cost of interests of several
others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
x x x x
21. In the present case also, as already indicated above, the
petitioners approached the Tribunal after a lapse of almost
13 years from the date of death of the employee concerned.
The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P. Venkatesh (supra) are squarely applicable
with the facts of the instant case. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant observations made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Venkatesh (supra) are
as under:
"The primary difficulty in accepting the line of
submissions, which weighed with the High Court,
and were reiterated on behalf of the respondents, in
these proceedings, is simply this; Compassionate
appointment, it is well settled, is intended to enable
the family of a deceased employee to tide over the
crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an
employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim
lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the
present case are seen, it is evident that even the first
recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was
in 2007, nearly 11 years after the death of the
employee. In the meantime, the first set of
representations had been rejected on 3 January
1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a
succession of orders calling upon the appellants to
21
CWP-6741 of 2022
consider and then re-consider the representations for
compassionate appointment. After the Union
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rejected
the representation on 13 November 2007, it was only
in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again, with the
same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for
re-consideration of the representation cannot
obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the
Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a
decade after the death of the deceased employee.
This 'dispose of the representation' mantra is
increasingly permeating the judicial process in the
High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may
make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in
overburdened adjudicated institutions. But, they do
not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is
back again before the Court, as they case shows,
having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays
of the legal process. This would have been obviated
by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby
resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, the
High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016,
nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date
of the death of the employee......."
x x x x
24. Looking to the material available on the record, and
after applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgments referred in foregoing paras, we are
of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward
by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit,
as the subsequent representations were made after a
22
CWP-6741 of 2022
decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of
the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great
lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated
19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no
interference by this Court.”
16. Compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to be
converted into an alternative source of public employment or a
hereditary right flowing from the service of the deceased employee.
Entertaining such belated claims would defeat the constitutional
mandate of equality in public employment guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled
for appointment on compassionate basis after about 14 years from the
date of death of his mother on 08.10.2012. The position of law is very
well settled that appointment on compassionate basis is not an alternate
source of recruitment nor does the consideration for such employment is
a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future.
18. No other point has been urged.
19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present writ petition
is dismissed
19.05.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
R.S. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....