Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kumar vs The Food Corporation Of India And Ors on 16 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051183
CWP-24512-2017 -1- 2024:PHHC:051183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CWP-24512-2017
Date of decision: 16.04.2024
NEERAJ KUMAR ....PETITIONER
Vs.
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Kamboj, Advocate and
Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated October' 2011
(Annexure P-2) whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
has been rejected.
2. The father of petitioner was working with respondent-FCI as
'Dustin Operator' who on 12.06.2001 passed away in harness.
3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on
19.12.2001. The respondent placed his name in the waiting list. The respondent
has kept 5% seats of direct recruitment for compassionate appointment. The
name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 827 in the list of candidates under
category-IV. His name came to be considered in 2011, however, on account of
non- availability of vacancies and huge number of applicants, his application
came to be rejected by impugned order dated October' 2011 (Annexure P-2).
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051183
CWP-24512-2017 -2- 2024:PHHC:051183
4. Mr. T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate submits that respondent has wrongly
rejected petitioner's claim. His father had died in harness, thus, respondent was
duty bound to consider him for a post in Category-IV.
5. Per contra, Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate submits that impugned order
was passed in 2011 whereas writ petition was filed in 2017, thus, it is liable to
be rejected on the doctrine of delay and latches.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. The respondent follows compassionate policy framed by Central
Government. 5% posts of direct recruitment are meant for compassionate
appointment. On account of non-availability of vacancy, the petitioner could not
be appointed.
8. The object of compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment is to
protect family of the deceased employee from destitution, penury and starvation.
In the object clause of the policy framed by the respondent, it has been
specifically noticed that object of the appointment on compassionate ground is
not to give a member of the deceased employee's family a post, much less a post
for a post held by the deceased but to provide relief to the family of a deceased
employee to tide over the sudden crisis brought about by his/her premature
death. The relief envisaged would provide the distressed family immediate
succor and financial assistance to recover from the unexpected deprivation of
the income of the sole bread-winner of the family.
9. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of
Haryana; (1994) 4 SCC 138, has held that appointment on compassionate
ground is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right especially
after passage of substantial time. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read
as:-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051183
CWP-24512-2017 -3- 2024:PHHC:051183
"2 The question relates to the considerations which
should guide while giving appointment in public
services on compassionate ground. It appears that
there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue.
As a rule, appointments in the public services should
be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty
to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be followed
strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved
out in the interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and
leaving his family in penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact that
unless some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both e nds meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment. The whole
object of granting compassionate employment is thus
to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The
object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051183
CWP-24512-2017 -4- 2024:PHHC:051183
are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to help it get
over the emergency. The provision of employment in
such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is
justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable treatment given to such dependant of the
deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief
against destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for the
purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that
as against the destitute family of the deceased there
are millions of other families which are equally, if not
more destitute. The exception to the rule made in
favour of the family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the change in the status
and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned."
10. From the perusal of above-cited judgment and policy of the
respondent-FCI, it is evident that object of the scheme is to protect family of the
deceased from being driven to destitution and penury. Petitioner's father passed
away more than 23 years back. The respondent could not appoint him on
account of non-availability of vacancy. The petitioner's claim was rejected in
2011 and he approached this Court in 2017. It seems that he wants to make hay
at this belated stage which is impermissible in equity as well as in law.
11. In the wake of above-referred judgment and considering inordinate
delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051183
CWP-24512-2017 -5- 2024:PHHC:051183
its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
16.04.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
