1. Writ petition for appointment on compassionate grounds filed by a dependent after attaining majority, several years after the death of the employee in harness. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : K.Ramaswamy
Jagdish Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar And Another
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 11/13/95
Advocates Appeared: Prasad Basudev : Prasad Sunil : Sinha Ajit Kumar
Advocates:
AJIT SINHA, BASUDEV PRASAD, Sunil Prasad
AJIT SINHA, BASUDEV PRASAD, Sunil Prasad
Compassionate appointment is intended to relieve immediate financial hardship caused by the sudden death of a breadwinner. It cannot be claimed decades later upon attaining majority, as that would create an unauthorized mode of recruitment outside the prescribed rules.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Object of appointment of a dependent of a deceased employee who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member - Claim for appointment made after attaining majority, many years after the death of the employee, cannot be entertained - Such a claim would amount to another mode of recruitment de hors the recruitment rules. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining majority in 1994, whereas the father had died in harness in 1971 when the appellant was four years old. A writ petition seeking such appointment was filed and subsequently dismissed by the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted when the death occurred long before the application was made, as the purpose of such appointments is to address immediate distress.
Issues: Whether a dependent who was a minor at the time of the employee's death is entitled to a compassionate appointment upon attaining majority several years later.
Ratio Decidendi: The object of compassionate appointment is to relieve immediate hardship; allowing a claim decades later would transform it into an alternative recruitment method, which is impermissible outside the established recruitment rules.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether compassionate appointment is permissible when the dependent was a minor at the time of death and claims that hardship continues until attaining majority. (Para 3 )
3. Compassionate appointment aims to relieve immediate hardship; claiming it long after attaining majority creates an unauthorized recruitment mode outside established rules. (Para 3 )
4. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate immediate distress and cannot be claimed as a right of recruitment long after the employee's death. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. What is the primary object of appointment on compassionate grounds?
The object of appointing a dependent of a deceased employee who dies in harness is to relieve the unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member. (Para 3 )
7. Can a dependent claim compassionate appointment long after attaining majority if they were a minor at the time of the employee's death?
No, because the purpose is to address immediate hardship. A claim made long after attaining majority, when the death occurred many years prior, is not entitled to such appointment. (Para 3 )
8. How does the timing of a compassionate appointment claim affect recruitment rules?
Allowing compassionate appointments long after the death of an employee would amount to creating another mode of recruitment for dependents of deceased government servants, which cannot be encouraged outside the established recruitment rules. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE High court had dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. The admitted fact is that he was four years old at the time when his father died in harness in the year 1971. He filed the writ petition after attaining majority in 1994 for a direction to appoint him on compassionate grounds which was negatived.
(3) IT is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the court is required to examine whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules.
(4) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed.
