Compassionate appointment is a concession meant for the dependents of deceased employees in financial distress, and cannot be claimed as a right, especially after a significant delay.

Headnote:(A) The relevant laws discussed pertain to the principles of compassionate appointment in public service, as derived from various constitutional mandates and Supreme Court precedents.

(B) It is established that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, meant to assist families in financial distress post the death of the breadwinner.

(C) Key facts include the petitioner, the eldest son of a deceased employee, suffering financial hardship and seeking appointment in lieu of his father's death in 2010.

(D) The court addressed issues around the availability of posts for compassionate appointment, asserting that appointments should not be made after an extended period post-death. (E) The court reasoned that the respondent had validly decided against filling vacancies due to directives and the compassionate appointment should not serve as a recruitment method. (F) The court ultimately dismissed the petition, stating, "I find no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed." (G) The parties involved included the petitioner, acting on behalf of his deceased father, and the respondent, Union of India. (H) There were discussions on dissenting views regarding the necessity and validity of compassionate appointments after long delays, reiterating the concession nature of such appointments over entitlement. (Paras 11 to 14)

Table of Content
1. request for compassionate appointment following father's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. arguments regarding vacancy and entitlement. (Para 5 , 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis on compassionate appointments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. compassionate appointment as a concession, not a right. (Para 13)
5. writ petition dismissed; judgment upheld. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, who is the son of late Shri Mata Pher, who was working as a gardener with the respondent no.2 and, while in service, expired on 23.03.2010, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the said respondent to grant him compassionate appointment in lieu of his deceased father.

2. The petitioner's father, while in service, expired on 23.03.2010, leaving behind his widow, one daughter and three sons, with the petitioner being the eldest son. On account of the severe financial hardships being faced by the family due to the death of the sole bread-earner, the petitioner's mother approached the respondent no.2,vide letter dated 19.06.2010, to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in lieu of his father.

3. In response to this request by the petitioner's mother, the respondent no.2, vide its communication dated 10.08.2010, agreed to appoint the petitioner on daily wages, which appointment the petitioner accepted w.e.f. 17.08.2010. The petitioner continued to work as a daily wager till 23.12.2011, whereafter, services of all daily wagers working in the respondent no.2 were terminated w.e.f. 23.12.2011. Even though, the petitioner claims that he worked till 10.03.2012, which averment is denied by the respondent, since nothing much turns on this aspect, I do not deem it necessary to delve into this issue.

4. Upon his services as a daily wager being terminated, the petitioner made various representations to the respondent no.2, and also approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes ("NCSC"). The learned Commission, vide its order dated 15.02.2013, directed the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's representation seeking regularisation of his services with the respondent no.2 on humanitarian grounds.

5. The NCSC issued summons to the Chairperson of the respondent no.2 asking him to remain present in the hearing, which was held on 02.06.2014 and was attended by the Director of the respondent no.2. Since the petitioner was not taken back in service by respondent no.2, he thereafter made applications under the RTI Act and, upon receiving information that there were 13 vacancies of unskilled Group D posts available in the respondent no.2, approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 4565/2018. This writ petition was disposed of on 01.05.2018, with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation to the respondent no.2, with directions to the respondent no.2 to decide the same within six weeks.

6. Pursuant to these directions, the respondent no.2 has, once again, considered the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment, but has, vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2018, rejected his representation on the ground that there were no available vacancies, against which the petitioner could be appointed on compassionate grounds, as the respondent no.1 had directed respondent no.2 not to fill up these 13 unfilled vacancies of Group D posts, and instead get the work outsourced.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

8. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was evident from the reply received under the RTI Act that there were 13 unfilled vacancies of unskilled group D posts available with the respondent no.2. She submits that 5% of these 13 vacancies are reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds, which would amount to 0.65 posts, and ought to be rounded off to 1 post. She, thus, contends that the petitioner is entitled to be accommodated against this 1 post, which ought t