Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right but must be decided reasonably and without unnecessary delay to avoid discrimination and uphold fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner, Shalika Sharma, being widow of Late Shri Parmesh Kumar, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned communications dated 10th July 2018 Annexure A-1 (Colly) conveyed on 06.02.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant as Clerk in daily wages under the respondent department (SSA/RMSA) forthwith according to policy decision taken under item No.16 dated 12th Aug, 2013 [Annexure A-2].”

2. Case of the petitioner as set up byLearned Counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Parmesh Kumar, died during service while serving as an accountant under the State Project Director [SSA/RMSA] at DIET, Mandi, on 21.06.2015. After the death of her husband, the petitioner being a graduate as per Annexure A-4 and having undergone two years of Elementary Teachers Training Course and in view the dependency, applied for employment in the month of September 2016 under the Kith & Kin Policy. However, the decision taken by the Finance department on 29.10.2016 {not conveyed} and reiterated on 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1], not to concur in the proposal. It is in this backdrop that petitioner has approached this Court, seeking quashing of the Rejection Orders dated 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1], with prayer to appoint her as Clerk on the same analogy on which employment as Clerk on daily wages has been given to another similar dependent, namely Mrs. Bhawna on 12.08.2015, [Annexure P-7]; with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES

3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondents 1 to 3 have filed Reply-affidavit dated 05.08.2024 of State Project Director [SSA/RMSA]:

(i) Para 2 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that petitioner has neither any legal and fundamental right and no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the case of the petitioner was re-considered/re-examined and petitioner has been appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 03.03.2023 after completing all codal formalities. In Para 3 of Reply-affidavit, the Respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of State Bank of India & Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 , to assert that the claim for compassionate appointment lies within the discretionary powers of the Authority in terms of the Scheme and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In Para 6 (iii) of the Reply-Affidavit, Respondents-State Authorities have admitted that in terms of its 37th Executive Committee Meeting held on 12.08.2013, decision was taken that dependents of deceased employees of this Society shall be appointed on compassionate grounds in the Society on Daily Wage basis. It is further averred in this Para that on receipt of complete case, the proposal was sent to the Government for its approval, but the same was rejected by the Finance Department. The operative part of the reply-affidavit, reads as under:-

“2. That neither any legal and fundamental right of the petitioner has ever been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action has accrued to her to file and maintain this petition in view of the settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, it is submitted that the matter regarding compassionate appointment to the petitioner was re-considered/re-examined and the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 03.03.2023 after completing all the