Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and should be made only for deserving cases within a reasonable period after the death of the employee, in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondents made in Na.Ka.No.2881/A1/2014 dated 02.09.14 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds consequent to the death of the petitioner mother.)

1. The rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that her deceased mother was employed as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent School. The mother of the writ petitioner was appointed on Compassionate ground on account of the death of her husband. The father of the writ petitioner was died on 17.06.1991 and the mother of the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. The mother of the writ petitioner served in the Government High School for about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002. The petitioner states that she is the adopted child of the deceased employee and therefore, she is eligible for compassionate appointment.

3. However, during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, not eligible for appointment. The petitioner submitted an application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2014 and the said application was rejected on the ground that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the application must be submitted within a period of three years and in respect of minors, no post needs to be reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died on 17.06.1991 and the mother of the writ petitioner got appointment on compassionate ground and she served about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002 and the petitioner was adopted by her mother in the year 2002 somewhere before the death of the mother and thereafter, the petitioner claims compassionate appointment.

5. Compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Scheme being a concession, is to be implemented scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Compassionate appointment scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is to be restricted, so as to ensure that the appointments are made on compassionate ground only for deserving cases. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the Government employee. Thus, the lapse of time is also a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be extended beyond the reasonable period, more so, after a lapse of several years.

6. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner died in the year 1991. Thereafter, the mother of the writ petitioner secured employment on compassionate grounds. She served about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002. The petitioner was adopted in the year 2002. At that point of time, she was a minor. On attaining the age of majority, she submitted an application in the year 2014, which was rejected on the ground of delay.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that appointments on compassionate grounds are streamlined by the Government, so as to provide appointment only on genuine grounds. Even any one of the legal heirs are employed in Government service or in private service and an earning member, then the family of the deceased employee is not eligible for Compassionate appointment.

8. 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 inv