The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Arun Monga while dealing with a writ petition against denial of compassionate appointment, observed that compassionate appointment should not be treated as a "reservation" of any kind. (Sudhir Kumar versus State of Haryana and others)
Facts of the case
The petition was filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents, conveyed to the petitioner through letter thereby declining his claim for compassionate appointment.
The case is that father of the petitioner, namely, Jaipal Singh (deceased) was working on the post of Clerk in the Irrigation and Water Resources Department. On 28.03.2003, father of the petitioner died while in service. State notified the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003(Rules of 2003) on 04.03.2003, i.e. 24 days before the death of petitioner’s father. Mother of the petitioner moved an application to the respondent-Department.
The said application was approved and was forwarded to Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Constructions Circle, Sonepat, who also approved the same. Petitioner was 17-year old at the time of death of his father. He became eligible to apply for the compassionate appointment within a period of 3 years from the date of death of his father (deceased employee).
Thereafter, State Government notified the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (Rules of 2006) whereby pending cases under Rules of 2003 were covered under the new Rules of 2006, and choice was being given to the dependents of Government employees whether they want to be covered under the Rules of 2003 or of 2006. Petitioner opted for Rules of 2003.
He filed complaint in the CM Window upon which action taken report was received stating that the petitioner was not offered job as right sizing of the jobs in the Department was done and that the petitioner was at Serial No.171 in terms of seniority for appointment. It was also mentioned that petitioner is now covered under the Rules of 2006 and therefore, entitled only for financial assistance. Mother of the petitioner received a letter from the office of Engineer-in-Chief and she was asked to submit documents for claiming Compassionate Financial Assistance of Rs.2.5 lakh. Petitioner filed a complaint in the CM Window, upon which action taken report was received stating that petitioner cannot avail the benefit of Rules of 2003. Hence, the present petition.
Courts observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, “Concededly, death of the petitioner’s father took place way back on 28.03.2003 on which date though he was only about 16-17 years. He became eligible on 26.06.2003 when he passed his Senior Secondary Examinations. Trite it is to say that compassionate appointment is not to be treated as a reservation of any kind. It is merely benevolent measure undertaken by an employer to ameliorate the immediate penury of family members of a deceased employee, who dies in harness, and the family is visited with sudden and extreme hardship in the given situation where there is no other earning member in the family.”
The bench further observed, “That apart there is colossal delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court in the year 2022. Concededly, petitioner, who was about 16-17 years of age at the time of death of this father i.e., on 28.03.2003, applied on turning 18 years, no doubt within 3 years of the death, but as long as for 17 years did not take any further action despite his case having not been taken up or decided either way by the Department. Even otherwise, entire delay is completely attributable to the petitioner and/ or his family members. Financial assistance, as per the applicable policy, has already been offered to the mother of the deceased employee.”
The bench dismissing the application remarked, “Death of petitioner’s father took place in the year 2003 and now 19 years later it cannot be the case of the petitioner that the sudden poverty with which they were struck in 2003, at this stage, is to be addressed after 19 years by giving compassionate appointment.
No grounds for interference are madeout. However, to the extent that the widow of the deceased employee was entitled to ex gratia compensation, it is expected of the respondents to pass appropriate orders and disburse the amount of Compassionate Assistance in accordance with the policy along with applicable rate of interest payable w.e.f. the date of issuance of letter whereby mother (widow) of the deceased employee was asked to attend hearing in respect of compassionate assistance of Rs.2.5 lakh, till payment.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
