Compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to alleviate sudden financial crises, and the decision-making process for such appointments should be examined in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13th January, 2023 passed by the respondent rejecting her application/representation dated 01st September, 2022. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh and consider her request for appointment on compassionate grounds independent of the retiral benefits which had been received by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the husband of the petitioner-Late Mr. Narender Kumar was working as a chauffeur in the establishment of this Court since 07th June, 2013. He states that the husband of the petitioner unfortunately died in harness on 17th April, 2022. He states that the deceased husband of the petitioner-Late Sh. Narender Kumar left behind a family of four including the petitioner and their two minor children and the mother-in-law of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01st September, 2022 to the respondent requesting the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground for herself on the ground that there was no earning member left in the family.

4. However, he states that by way of the impugned order dated 13th January, 2023, representation made by the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that the financial condition of the petitioner's family was not penurious because the petitioner has received approximately Rs.7 lakhs on account of DCR Gratuity, Rs.3,89,036/-as leave encashment and because the petitioner was further entitled to receive monthly pension of Rs.22,050/plus dearness allowance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the fact that the petitioner has received retirement benefits of the deceased cannot be the sole ground for dismissal of the application/representation for compassionate appointment. He states that the children of the petitioner are school going and the petitioner also has to bear the expenses for the same apart from taking care of the medical expenses of her ailing mother-in-law. As such, according to the petitioner, the retirement benefits are not sufficient to make both ends meet.

6. Per contra, learned for the respondent states that it is settled law that appointment on the basis of compassion is not a right. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Kavita vs. Delhi High Court & Anr., W.P.(C) No.8861/2022, wherein this Court after relying upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court held that "appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner by providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process".

7. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that petitioner's representation was rejected only after consideration of all facts by the Competent Authority. Since considerable emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondent on the Minutes of Meeting of the Administrative Committee for appointment of officials of Delhi High Court, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: