The right to compassionate appointment is a concession given under the scheme and is not a source of recruitment. The claim for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must be strictly examined within the framework of the employer's policy.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. -

Brief Background

1. The Appellant, widow of a deceased employee, is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"] whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected her writ petition [being W.P.(C.) No. 2807/2017] impugning the letter dated 2nd April, 2015 issued by the employer, State Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent No. 3"] declining her appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Appellant is that her husband expired on 17th July, 2014, whilst he was in the service of Respondent No. 3. As on the date of death, the deceased had rendered services for a period of 15 years and 6 months and was aged 34 years, 1 month and 27 days. He is survived by the Appellant herein, mother and two minor daughters aged 8 years and 2 years. The financial condition of the deceased's family was distressing, and the same deteriorated further after his passing, as the deceased was the sole bread-earner for the family. The destitution and penury compelled the Appellant to seek compassionate appointment with Respondent No. 3. An application dated 3rd November, 2014 was filed in this regard, followed by several representations and reminders, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Competent Authority informed the Appellant vide communication dated 25th March, 2015, that her request for compassionate appointment had been declined, and that she could apply for ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of the appointment on compassionate grounds, within nine months from the date of death of the employee as per the extant instructions of Respondent No. 3.

3. Thereafter, vide letter dated 2nd April, 2015, in reply to the Appellant's letter dated 30th March, 2015, Respondent No. 3 informed the Appellant that her case was examined as per the prevalent scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, and it was observed that as the total length of service of the deceased was 15 years and 6 months and he was of the age of 34 years 1 month and 27 days, her case did not fall under any of the eligibility criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds, which envisaged two exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances are highlighted in the said communication dated 2nd April, 2015, and read as under-

"(i) Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity.

OR

(ii) Employee dying within 05 years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/ or minor children."

It was further reiterated that the Appellant may avail the scheme of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Aggrieved with the rejection, the Appellant also made a representation to the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, the same was turned down. In this background, the Appellant approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 2807/2017 and sought the following reliefs-

"(A) issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the policy adopted by the Respondent no. 3 in the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds;

(B) issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.04.2015 of the respondent no. 3 whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected;

(C) issue a writ of mandamus thereby restoring the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the law;

(D) award the cost of proceedings in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

(E) pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. The learned Single Judge, did not find merit in the petition and