Compassionate appointment is an exception and must be in accordance with constitutional principles. Preference is given to direct dependents over indirect dependents, and financial security of the family is a relevant consideration.

JUDGMENT :

In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 24.12.2015, whereby the respondents have rejected the claim for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It has further been payed for a direction upon the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to this petitioner, who is son-in-law of the deceased.

2. One Prem Prakash Hembrom, the father in-law of the petitioner, who was an employee of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short 'ECL') died in harness on 15.8.1999 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. This petitioner is the son-in-law of the deceased -Prem Prakash Hembrom, being the husband of Dipika Hembrom. Upon the death of the deceased, son-in-law applied for grant of compassionate appointment, as he claimed that he was dependent upon the deceased and residing with him. The marriage of this petitioner and Dipika Hembrom (daughter of the deceased) was solemnized on 27.4.1999. It is the mother in-law who sponsored the name of this petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Be it noted that another daughter has expired and the second son of the deceased also died on 22.5.2001. It is further case of the petitioner that respondents are governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement (for short 'NCWA') and as per the provisions of NCWA, the son-in-law being the dependent is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground.

3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is an indirect dependent and there being direct dependent, he cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide reasoned order dated 24.12.2015.

4. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a rule, but is an exception. A candidate has got no right to be appointed on compassionate ground as the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6938 of 2022 [State of Maharashtra and Anr. Versus Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli)] at paragraph 6 thereof has held as under:-

6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

5. The approach of compassionate appointment has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6.1 of the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No.6938 of 2022 after taking note of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is necessary to quote paragraph 6.1, which reads as under:-

6.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-

21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

2. … As a rule, appointments in the public servi