Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.BC2/827/2014 dated 21.08.2015 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Pump Operator in the third respondent-Panchayat on compassionate grounds.)

1.The order of the first respondent dated 21.08.2015 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the deceased employee was working as Overhead Tank Operator, which is a part time employment.

2. The father of the writ petitioner late Mr.N.Krishnan was worked as Overhead Tank Operator and died on 16.07.2015, while he was in service. The deceased employee was a consolidated pay employee and the nature of job of Overhead Tank Operator is part time.

3. The petitioner submitted an application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that the legal heirs of the deceased part time employees are not eligible to avail the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment.

4. The scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the Government Employee. Compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment, nor an appointment under the constitutional scheme. It is a concession granted to the Government employees on certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions, then alone the scheme can be extended, but not otherwise. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.

5. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested, but persons are appointed merely based on death of an employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public administration. No doubt, the Government has also restricted the compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving family and more so, after a lapse of many years. Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the lapse of time is also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. Number of judgments are delivered by this Court and the Government has also issued revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.

6. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30], has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are extracted hereunder:

“8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in State of Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20], had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 7 SCC 617], this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:

10.1. That the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

10.2. That no aspirant has a righ