Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and is meant to provide immediate help to the family of the deceased breadwinner. Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer that he should be granted the benefits of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment by virtue of policy dated 05.07.2011.

3. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner’s father who was working as a Peon-cum-Driver in the office of respondent no. 4 died on 10.11.2007. The petitioner who at the time of his father’s death was a minor applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 30.01.2008. At that time, the petitioner was aged 17 years and few months, his date of birth being 25.04.1991. After examining the resolutions, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that at the time when he applied he was a minor.

3.1 Subsequently it appears that by a communication dated 25.07.2012, the Collector Junagadh has informed the petitioner that his application having once been rejected in accordance with the policy of 05.07.2011, compensation can be paid to only such beneficiaries whose applications at that point of time are pending. In light of these facts the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment/compensation being rejected the present petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition.

4. Mr. Aditya Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner would rely on a decision of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1312 of 2017 dated 21.03.2018 and submit that the petitioner’s case deserves consideration.

5. This court has considered the aforesaid decision. However, time and again the law on compassionate appointment has been discussed by the Apex Court and this court. This court in Special Civil Application No. 2227 of 2019 has considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653] and has observed as under:

“5. From the matrix of facts noted above, it is clear that the mother's application was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite education qualification. The rejection was communicated. After the rejection of request of the mother, the same was not liable to be reopened in view of Clause 6 of the Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Since the application of the mother was already rejected, the same was not liable to be reopened. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for the benefit under the said Resolution dated 05.07.2011, also did not book any error on part of the authorities.

5.1 In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653], the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that granting of appointment on compassionate basis has to be an immediate measure. The Apex court highlighted the aspect of immediacy to be observed in grant of compassionate appointment. It was stated that observance of immediacy was necessary having regard to the nature of such appointment. It was reiterated further that the compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule that the appointment to any public post in service of the state has to be made on the basis of the opportunities which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the case before the Apex Court, there was a delay of seven years in making application for compassionate appointment, in respect of which the Supreme Court observed that after passage of long time, sense of immediacy was evidently lost. The delay which may have occurred for either reason would take out the element of immediacy which is sine qua non in offering the appointment on compassionate appointment. The very raison d'etre for giving compassionate appointment or compassionate benefit is lost once the immediacy has died down.

5.2 The principle was highlighted by learned Assistant Government Pleader from decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 322] that mere making of representation or the conduct or continuing to make representations do not answer the delay on part of the litigant and representations al