IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be claimed promptly; significant delays can negate the claim as the immediate financial crisis must be addressed at the time of the deceased's death.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL), appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting this present proceeding, has prayed for a direction for consideration of her case for appointment against a Grade-IV vacancy under the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) and in this connection, has also assailed an order, dated 14.09.2021, by which her case for appointment on compassionate ground, was rejected.

3. The husband of the petitioner, a permanent employee under the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.(APDCL) had died in harness on 30.06.2016. The petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground on 08.08.2016 under the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2014.

4. As projected in the writ petition, vide the impugned communication, dated 14.09.2021, while the case of 15 numbers of candidates were found eligible for appointment against Grade III and Grade-IV posts on compassionate ground, in pursuance of an exercise carried-out as an one-time measure for consideration of all pending applications; the petitioner, herein, was not so recommended for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the said Scheme of 2014.

5. The learned standing counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL), has brought to the notice of this Court, a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sumit Wary v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) & ors. [order, dated 03.05.2022, in WP(c)5899/2021], wherein, this Court, on consideration of an issue similar to the one as arising in the present proceeding, drew the following conclusions were arrived at:

"10. It is a settled law that an appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general Rules of recruitment wherein a benefit is given to an incumbent of a family which has lost its sole breadwinner. The objective of such appointment is to enable the bereaved family to overcome the immediate crisis.

11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the APDCL had a compassionate appointment scheme of 2014 which was for the period from 18.02.2014 to 31.03.2017. The death of the father of the petitioner being on 22.03.2017, his case was to be covered within the effective period. The question therefore arises as to whether there was a consideration of the case of the petitioner for such appointment at all and if so whether such consideration was made by taking into account all the relevant factors vis-à-vis the similarly situated other candidates.

12. Though the objection has been raised on the veracity of the authenticity of the documents which contains the consideration of all the candidates who were in the fray for appointment on compassionate ground, in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent -Company, such objection is not acceptable. The Court, is therefore left to examine the consideration done to the petitioner vis-à-vis the other candidates. The column containing the remark of the Selection Committee for each of the candidates would reflect the factors which were taken into consideration. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in contending that the payment of family pension should not be a factor to a complete negation of an application for compassionate ground, the said factor cannot be held to be wholly irrelevant in such consideration, more so, when the financial position of the candidates in fray are to be assessed. In the instant case, the amounts received by the family of the candidates whose candidatures were considered would show that it is not only the petitioner but there are other candidates also who were held to be ineligible for such appointment and such finding was mainly on the ground of the