Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 July, 2022
Letters Patent Appeal No. 55 of 2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 55 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 11.07.2022
Rahul Sharma .....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE.
Present:- Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
****
RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) claiming compassionate
appointment as well as assailing the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the
respondent-authorities rejecting the petitioner's claim, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that father of the
petitioner, who was working as a Personal Assistant to the Chairman, Head
Office, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, died while in harness on
10.10.2008. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment
on 17.12.2008 through his mother as at the relevant point of time he was 17
years old. His claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the
authorities vide order dated 11.02.2016, against which the petitioner had
filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 16891 of 2016 before this Court. Vide order
dated 19.02.2020 passed in the said writ petition, this Court was of the
1 of 6
opinion that the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the respondent-authorities
suffers from non-application of mind and non-consideration of material facts
and therefore, quashed the order directing the respondent-authorities to
reconsider the matter and permitting the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in
support of his claim.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to
the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner filed an affidavit before the
respondent-authorities on 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-9), whereupon the
authorities examined the petitioner's claim and rejected the same vide order
dated 22.06.2020 on three grounds, namely, that the petitioner's family was
getting pension after the death of his father; that the petitioner's mother was
in employment and that the petitioner was also working.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court taking these aspects into consideration
including the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others 1994(4) SCC 138 and State of
Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Sriwas 2020(10) SCC 496. Learned
Single Judge has recorded a finding that compassionate appointment is not a
regular source of appointment and that it is a special mode of appointment
devised only to mitigate immediate hardship that a family faces on account
of the death of the bread earner of the family. Learned Single Judge taking
all these three aspects, referred to above, into consideration, has recorded a
finding that the petitioner does not suffer from penury and has therefore,
rightly been refused compassionate appointment by the authorities vide the
impugned order dated 22.06.2020.
2 of 6
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this
Court through various documents to contend that the pension received by the
family on account of the death of the petitioner's father cannot be a ground
to reject his claim for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy and
that the petitioner's appointment is not on regular basis as he is a contractual
employee and getting a fixed salary. In such circumstances, the order
rejecting the petitioner's claim and the order dismissing his writ petition
would liable to be set aside and the respondent-authorities would have been
directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The object and purpose of the policy for compassionate
appointments have been clearly mentioned therein by the authorities
themselves while framing the policy pursuant to the decision of the Supreme
Court rendered in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others
(supra). It is relevant to reproduce the same to indicate the guidelines on the
basis of which the policy has to be interpreted:-
"This policy was framed on the basis of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered
in the case of 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of
Haryana and others 1994(4) SCC 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 crisis resulting from the employee's
death. The offering compassionate appointments as a
matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of
the family of the deceased and making compassionate
appointments in posts above class-III and IV is legally
3 of 6
impermissible. The compassionate appointments cannot 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 crisis which it faces, at the time of
death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the
lapse of time and after the crisis 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."
From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the policy was brought in
line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal
vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), and the same was in existence even
at the time of death of the petitioner's father. Though the learned counsel for
the petitioner has taken us through various clauses of the policy to contend
that the pension being paid to the petitioner's family on account the death of
his father could not be considered, however, it is observed that even if that
aspect is not taken into consideration, the policy required the authorities to
determine as to whether the petitioner was in such a dire state of penury on
the death of sole bread earner of the family requiring immediate assistance
4 of 6
in the form of compassionate appointment to one of the members of the
family. In such circumstances, the fact that the petitioner's mother was in
employment was a relevant factor, on this ground alone, the authorities
cannot be faulted with to arrive at a finding that the petitioner was not
suffering from penury and did not require immediate assistance on the death
of his father. The learned Single Judge has further noted the fact that the
petitioner's father had expired while in harness on 10.10.2008 whereas the
petitioner prayed for re-consideration of his claim for compassionate
appointment in the year 2020.
Learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Sriwas (supra) has
rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim for
compassionate appointment is not a vested right and gets adversely affected
with the efflux of time and cannot be considered at a belated stage as the fact
that the petitioner has been able to tide over the adverse circumstances even
for a long period of time itself, indicates that he is not suffering from penury.
The respondent-authorities while considering the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment and rejecting the same vide order
dated 22.06.2020 have taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is
not entitled to any benefit under the instructions relating to compassionate
appointment as he is self dependent and working on contractual basis with
the Punjab State Power Corporation, Gobindgarh. The authority has also
taken note of the fact that the petitioner's family is receiving two pensions,
namely, on account of the death of the petitioner's father and the second one
is being received by the mother of the petitioner. The authorities have also
recorded a finding that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
family is suffering from penury.
5 of 6
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the
petitioner's claim and upholding the order passed by the respondent-
authorities dated 22.06.2020. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI SHANKER JHA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ARUN PALLI)
11.07.2022 JUDGE
ravinder
Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Whetherreportable √Yes/No
6 of 6
