Compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate sustenance to the family in distress and cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

I.A. No. 11985 of 2019

The appellant has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 399 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 399 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. I.A. No. 11985 of 2019 is, accordingly, allowed.

LPA No. 914 of 2019

4. The appellant has challenged the order dated 28th September 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 3950 of 2005.

5. By the aforesaid order, the writ Court has dismissed the challenge laid by the appellant to the order dated 11th March 2005 by which his application for compassionate appointment has been declined.

6. Briefly stated, father of the petitioner who was a permanent employee and working as Horticulture Supervisor at Bhawnathpur in the district of Garhwa died in harness on 19th December 1997, leaving behind five dependents including the petitioner. The appellant came to this Court in CWJC No. 4389 of 2000 for a direction upon the Steel Authority of India Limited (in short, SAIL) for compassionate appointment which was disposed of by an order dated 08th January 2003 in the following terms:

“The facts of the case is quite similar to the facts of the case relied upon. Consequently, this writ is allowed at the stage of admission itself and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and to pass a reasoned order. It is also made clear that if unnecessary delay is made and the order is not passed within the stipulated time then the respondents will be liable to pay some cost.”

7. In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by the writ Court, order dated 11th March 2005 has been passed by the Deputy General Manager, SAIL declining compassionate appointment to the appellant.

8. As notice above, the order dated 11th March 2005 was challenged by the appellant in WP(S) No. 3950 of 2005 which has been dismissed in the following terms:

“11. The purpose of giving employment under the provision of compassionate employment is always subject to availability of post and is to give immediate assistance to the deceased family being the bread earner of the family and the decision to provide employment would always be subject to the financial status of the company. In the meantime, more than two decades have elapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee in harness in the year 1997 and the family of the deceased employee have availed all the possible terminal benefits from the respondent company, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground at this distance of time cannot be acceded to in view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs.

12. This Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.03.2005, at Annexure-6 to the writ application, which warrants no interference by this Court.”

9. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the order dated 11th March 2005 the Deputy General Manager has suppressed several vital facts, inasmuch as, 51 persons were appointed on compassionate ground but application of the appellant has been declined on the ground that there was no vacancy available. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the orders passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 4169 of 2008 and WP(S) No. 4170 of 2008 to submit that the SAIL has adopted a discriminatory approach against the appellant by declining him compassionate appointment on similar facts.

10. As is borne from the records of this case, the family of the appellant has been provided benefits under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and the post-retiral benefits including provident fund, gratuity, life cover scheme, leave encashment etc. amounting to Rs. 4,70,407/- has been paid by th