Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is meant to provide immediate help to the family facing a sudden crisis due to the death of the employee. The financial condition of the family must be considered before granting compassionate appointment.

Chandra Prakash Singh, father of the petitioner was working as Accountant in the office of District Dairy Development, Ranchi and has died in harness on 11.06.2008 leaving behind his widow Smt. Iti Rani Roy, elder son Amit Kumar and younger son Abhishek Prakash (present petitioner). Present petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment which was declined vide impugned order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure no. 3 & 4) on the ground that petitioner's elder brother Amit Kumar is in service.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Amit Kumar, the elder brother of the petitioner is leaving separately from the family and was not dependent on the deceased employee late Chandra Prakash Singh on the date of his death. It has further been contended that since petitioner was dependent on his father on the date of his death, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the compassionate appointment.

3. Undisputedly, on the death of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, the father of the petitioner, petitioner and his mother have received approximately Rs. six lacs rupees as death-cum-post retiral benefits.

4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138 has observed as under:

“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.”

5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 has held as under:

“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a mater of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. That the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.”

6. Hon'ble Apex Court yet in another case in V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 has observed as under:

19. In V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of A.P. This Court while observing that although appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on compassionate grounds are well-recognised exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies, highlighted the following two well-recognised contingencies as exceptions to the general rule: (Scc P. 7 41, para 18)

(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service.

(ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr. reported in JLJR (2) 2012 102 in paragraph no. 9 has held as under:

“9. There can be no quarrel to the