While dealing with the case of Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that ordinarily, the Court would not have interfered in the matter of compassionate appointments in the absence of any policy qua the contractual employees which concededly the husband of the petitioner was at the time of his death.
However, the Bench of Justice Justice Arun Monga allowed writ petition by petitioner seeing for issuance of writ to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 whereby neither service benefits on account of death of her husband have not been granted to hernor her request for the compassionate appointment is being considered.
In this case, the petitioner’s husband was working on a contract basis, with the respondent department and he died in harness on 02.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of the High Court rendered in Mamtesh vs State of Haryana and others 2019(4) SCT 116, in support of his arguments, wherein it was held that even in the case of a temporary employee working for the State, in the event of death in harness, benefit of compassionate appointment to one of the family members can be extended.
Therefore, he argues that in the case of petitioner same benefit ought to be accorded. Her husbandwas admittedly a contractual employee but having served for nine years and was entitled for regularization of his services, qua which his case was pending at the time when he suddenly died in the road accident.
The Court held in this repsect that ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in the matter of compassionate appointments in the absence of any policy qua the contractual employee, which concededly the husband of the petitioner was at the time of his death.
“However, given the mitigating circumstances as more particularly stated in the petition and also the fact that deceased husband of the petitioner had served the respondents for nine years, leaving behind young 33 years widow with four minor children to feed, it is expected of the respondents to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner, subject of course to the requirement of services, on any suitable post in any class, on a similar arrangement of contract like her husband”, added Court.
Thus, Court dirceted a decision to be taken as expeditiously as possible, given that the petitioner and her four minor children continue live in penury caused by the sudden financial hardship due to the accidental death of her husband.
Case Name: Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another
Picture Source :
