Judgment :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The appellant was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed seeking relief of compassionate appointment upon demise of the writ petitioner’s father namely Jittu Lall, who died in harness. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.10.2024. This order of the Writ Court is put to challenge in the present appeal.

2. Briefly stating the facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner’s father died while in harness on 13.12.2004, while working in the Department of I.G. Mint, Alipore. His wife (petitioner’s mother) applied for petitioner’s compassionate appointment. The claim was rejected by a communication dated 18.02.2014. The claim was sought to be revived by the petitioner’s mother by issuing a letter dated 10.10.2017. The authorities again by a communication dated 31.08.2022, reiterated their stand in the earlier rejection order dated 18.02.2014; and once again regretted the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

3. The Writ Court found that the writ petition filed in 2023, nearly a decade after the first rejection dated 18.02.2014, and nearly two decades after the petitioner’s father died (13.12.2004), did not merit any consideration in view of the long unexplained delay. The learned Single Judge considered the settled legal position that object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased Government employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to sudden loss of the bread earner. The compassionate appointment is offered as an exception to the rule with such social objective; and can be availed only under such circumstance when the family of a Government employee is rendered destitute due to the sudden loss. The concept cannot be stretched so as to make a claim for compassionate appointment as a matter of right, at any time in future, long after the crisis is over.

4. The learned Single Judge also found that the writ petitioner’s mother had applied for payment of lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment on 30.03.2021. Therefore, on this ground also the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner’s mother had consciously pursued that option and therefore, was disentitled to raise a belated claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. Mr. Ali, learned Senior Advocate representing the writ petitioner submits that at the time of his demise, the petitioner’s father was serving under the Department of I.G. Mint, Alipore. Rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment by letter dated 18.02.2014, is based on a scheme for grant of compensatory lump sum allowance in lieu of compassionate appointment introduced by a different entity, namely Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL for short). This entity came into existence later, in the year 2006, after the Cabinet decision to corporatize the Mint. Scheme/decision of such an entity cannot govern the petitioner’s claim. The father of the petitioner never served under the SPMICL and petitioner’s claim cannot be considered by SPMICL or by any scheme framed/ implemented after demise of the petitioner’s father by the SPMICL.

6. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner never applied for lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the writ petitioner did not write the letter dated 30.03.2021.

7. The third submission advanced by the learned Senior Advocate is regarding compassionate appointment by SPMICL to 9 other, similarly situated as the petitioner. In this connection he has placed reliance on the table (at page 47 of the paper book), containing Draft Seniority List of Application for Compassionate Appointment, wherein the names of 9 persons have been enlisted. He further submits that whereas these 9 persons were extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, claim of the writ petitioner was rejected, which fact is apparent from a reading of the averment made in p