COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT A SOURCE OF RECRUITMENT IN THE NORMAL COURSE. SUCH APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE BY WAY OF CONCESSION, ONLY TO PROVIDE SUCCOUR TO THE DISTRESSED FAMILY. THE APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS IS AVAILABLE TO THE HEIRS OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES IN HARNESS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FAMILY PENSION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE.

NISHITA MHATRE, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgement and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 306 of 2011 rejecting the petitioner Section claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The petitioner’s father was employed with the respondents and posted in the Bhatpara State General Hospital. He died in harness on 26th, January 2003 leaving behind his wife, two sons including the petitioner and two daughters. The family received the dues payable to them after employee’s death. They were paid Provident Fund of 1,20,000/-, Gratuity of 54,000/- and 12,000/- on account of Insurance. Besides this the widow was being paid family pension of 3,800/ p.m. She continues to draw this amount. The elder brother of the petitioner is earning about 1,500/- p.m.

3. The petitioner applied for appointment in a Group-D post on compassionate grounds in accordance with the scheme available for employees of the State Government.

4. The petitioner’s application has been rejected on the ground that although he applied soon after his father’s death for compassionate appointment, he was not entitled to the same as the family was not living in penury. While rejecting the petitioner’s case, it was observed by the authorities that the family was paid the aforesaid amounts on the death of the employee and, therefore, there was no need to grant any compassionate appointment. The petitioner had applied on 15th July, 2004. However, he was informed of the rejection of his claim by a letter dated 26th February 2009. Aggrieved by that decision the petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner had not caused any undue delay in submitting his claim for compassionate appointment. However it endorsed the view of the authorities that the petitioner was not entitled to the appointment because the family had been paid the benefits after the death of the employee.

6. Several judgements have been cited for us by both parties in support of their contentions. In V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 the Apex Court considered the manner in which appointment on compassionate grounds are to be made. These appointments are made by carving out an exception to the mandate envisaged in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution while dealing with public employments. The court observed that compassionate appointments are to be made only on the basis of well-recognised contingencies, namely, (i) to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service and (ii) to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner.

7. In the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 the Supreme Court considered several of its earlier judgements and observed that the following factors have to be borne in mind while considering a claim for employment on compassionate grounds :-

“(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme.

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.

(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of th