The scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable only to permanent employees, not contract labourers, and is a concession, not a vested right.

1. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner admittedly was appointed as Contract Labourer initially, however, the father of the writ petitioner was included in the list of persons who all are entitled to be absorbed in a permanent post. In other words, the father of the writ petitioner was in verge of permanent absorption and he died before issuing the order of permanent absorption. Under these circumstances, the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The father of the writ petitioner, while he was a contract labour died on 28.05.2006. The writ petitioner claims that he submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, within a period of limitation prescribed by the respondents Board. However, this case was not considered on account of the fact that, the father of the writ petitioner was not a permanent employee of the Board and at the time of the death, the father of the writ petitioner was continuing work as a contract labour.

3. This Court is of an opinion that, the scheme of compassionate appointment, undoubtedly is applicable to the permanent employees of the respondent Board. The legal heirs of the contract labourers cannot be claimed for a scheme of compassionate appointment. They are not the full members of the services of the Board. Thus, the scheme cannot be extended to such contract labourers and by enlarging the scope of the compassionate appointment, the recruitment Rules cannot be completely diluted or violated. All appointment to the public post are to be done under Constitutional schemes and by following procedures contemplated under the recruitment Rules in force. In the event of expanding the scope of the compassionate appointment to the contract labourers, undoubtedly, the rights of all other eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure employment would be infringed. Thus, the respondents are bound to restrict the scheme as far as possible, as the scheme is a special one and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment is to be strictly granted in accordance with the terms and conditions and expansion of the scheme is impermissible in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Courts across the Country.

4. The facts remains, that the father of the writ petitioner died on 28.05.2006 and already 13 years lapsed. Admittedly, the father of the writ petitioner was working as a Contract labourer at the time of death and the scheme cannot be extended in view of the terms and conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment now in force. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that, similar case of a contract labourer was considered and his legal heir was accommodated by the Board by providing an appointment. However, a wrong precedent will not provide a right on a writ petition to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The Courts also are not bound by such wrong precedents set out by the respondents on certain circumstances or by giving appointment. The respondents are bound to implement the scheme in its with reference to the terms and conditions and strictly in accordance with law.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Government of India & Another Vs. P. Venkatesh, in Civil Appeal No.2425 of 2019 dated 01.03.2019, held as follows,

"The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Admi