The High Court of Himachal Pradesh noted that the object of appointment on compassionate grounds is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and there cannot be “endless compassion”, a person cannot be heard to complain that he should have been appointed from the date of his applying for the post when he did not object earlier.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the petitioner is currently serving as a Class IV employee and was appointed on compassionate grounds on 05.03.2014. through the current application, he has prayed that his appointment shall related back to the year 2011 when he had first applied for such appointment.
The father of the petitioner had worked as a regular Class-IV employee in the respondent – Health department and died in harness on 14.05.2005. Then the petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds against the Class-IV post and at that time his qualification was middle pass (8th).
The petitioner’s case is that he had applied in the year 2009 and his case for relaxation of required education qualification was eventually approved by the government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions and he was accordingly appointed as a Class IV employee on compassionate grounds in 2014 and his services were regularized on 04.06.2019. then on 25.10.2021, the petitioner had made a representation to respondent no. 2 that is the director of health services to consider him as having been appointed since 2009 to assign him seniority accordingly. In this background, the petitioner has instituted the current petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the appointment under the compassionate scheme is not meant to be a source of recruitment. The employer as per the availability of the post after examining the case and all the relevant parameters of the applicable policy considered the case of the kith & kin of the deceased employee for providing employment assistance on compassionate grounds.
The court in the current case noted that the petitioner had accepted the appointment without any demur or protest, he did not have any qualms for having not been appointed earlier and he had not raised any claim for seeking appointment with retrospective effect from 2009. The court also noted that his representation dated 25.05.2021 seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds from the year 2009 is only an afterthought. Then it was noted by the court that the prayer made by the petitioner in the representation and the relief claimed on that basis in the current writ petition cannot be considered at this stage and the issue cannot be reopened after such a long time.
The court then referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, where the Apex Court held that no further consideration would arise in that case for appointment on compassionate grounds as it would be a case of endless compassion. Then the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Arbind Jee was also referred by the court, where the claim of retrospective seniority was declined by the court and it was held that seniority benefit can accrue only after a person joins service and cannot be earned retrospectively.
For the given case the court noted that the petitioner had applied in 2009 and was appointed as a class IV employee on compassionate grounds in 2014 and he had accepted such employment at that time, then his services were regularised in 2019. It was also noted that the petitioner had served as a Class – IV employee under the terms and conditions of the memorandum without raising any objection and now he cannot be heard to complain that he should have been appointed from the date of his applying for the post.
The decision of the Court:
No merit was found in the current writ petition and the same was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Karam Singh v. State of HP & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Case no.: CWP No.6341 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur & Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
