Compassionate appointments should consider the circumstances at the time of the employee's death, and restrictions placed after that event cannot apply retroactively.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for appointment on compassionate ground on account of his father having died in harness on 8.2.2014 while working as Daftary in the Civil Court at Aurangabad.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father died on 8.2.2014 leaving behind the petitioner and his sister. The family was left with no source of income and the mother of the petitioner having predeceased his father, there was no question of any disbursement of family pension.

4. As such the petitioner filed an application on 9.7.2014 before the respondent no.3 for his appointment on compassionate ground. The application was directed to be put up before the Appointment Committee. As directed, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on the date fixed along with all the original documents.

5. The Appointment Committee of the Civil Court, Aurangabad vide its resolution passed in the meeting held on 9.2.2015 appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of Daftary in Class IV, subject to the approval of the Patna High Court.

6. The petitioner not having received his letter of appointment filed a representation before the respondent no.3 whereafter he was communicated vide letter dated 16.6.2016 of the respondents that his appointment had not been approved by the Patna High Court and by letter dated 15.12.2015 had been sent back to the respondent no.3 for reconsideration. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that another letter dated 4.1.2016 was received from the respondent no.2 by the respondent no.3 communicating that the total strength of compassionate appointees should not exceed 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre. Learned counsel submitted that on the death of his father, an employee of the Civil Court, with no source of income, the family was living a miserable life and as such the application be allowed and the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground.

7. In response, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the decision taken in the case of the petitioner as also other applicants was transmitted to the Patna High Court for its approval on 9.2.2015. This Court by its letter dated 15.12.2015 declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and two others and directed for re-examination of their cases in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138 as also to ascertain the financial condition of the applicant. The case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 3.8.2016. Taking note of the fact, two letters of the Patna High Court dated 4.1.2016 and 5.4.2016 which restricts the appointment on compassionate ground so as not to exceed 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre in which such appointment is to be made and also taking note of the fact that staffs already appointed in the Judgeship of Aurangabad was more than 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre, by letter dated 19.9.2016, the respondent no.2 communicated to the respondent no.3 that the case of the petitioner along with others had not been considered favourably. It was thus submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

9. The relevant facts in brief are that