Krishna Kumari vs State of Haryana - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 536

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(P&H) 536

2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 1598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[FULL BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.4303 of 2009 & connected writ petitions (O&M)
Krishna Kumari
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 20/04/2012}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s), (in CWP Nos.7276, 11330 of 2008 and 18600 of 2009):
Mr. Mahavir Singh Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Petitioner, (in CWP No.4303 of 2009):Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.14689 of 2008):Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.1570 of 2007):Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.5335 of 2009):Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate.
For the Petitioners (in CWP No.14875 & 14894 of 2009):Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.20536 of 2009):Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.6247 of 2009):Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.8113 of 2011):Mrs. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.8070 of 2011):Mr. Jitendra Nara, Advocate.
For the Petitioners (in CWP No.16193 of 2011 and CWP No.11521 of 2010):
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.12717 of 2009):Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.930 of 2011):Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State in all the cases:Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana

Headnote:Service Law--Compassionate Appointment-- Rules in operation at the time of death of employee would be applicable and not the rules applicable on the date when case is considered by appropriate authority
       (A) Service Law--Compassionate Appointment--Held; Rules in operation at the time of death of employee would be applicable and not the rules applicable on the date when case is considered by appropriate authority.
       (B) Service Law--Compassionate appointment--Application for compassionate employment has to be preferred without undue delay and ahs to be considered within a reasonable period of time as compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family.
       (C) Service Law--Compassionate Appointment-- Factors are to be considered
       “(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
       (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
       (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service--Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
       (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.”

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions* which have been preferred by various petitioners. However, the facts have been referred from CWP No.4303 of 2009.

2. The question of law, which has been referred to this Full Bench for decision is as regards the rules which would be applicable to government employees who seek compassionate appointment whether it would be the rules in operation at the time of death of the employee or the rules applicable on the date when case is considered by the appropriate authority. In view of conflicting views by various Division Benches, the case has been referred to the Full Bench.

3. Some facts necessary for decision of the case are being noticed here:

4. Petitioner’s husband, who had been working as Junior Engineer in Haryana Irrigation Department, expired on 23rd February, 1995. On 5th May, 1995, she moved an application to respondent department for providing employment on compassionate grounds to her only son namely, Manoj Kumar, who at that time was seven years old. A letter was thereafter addressed from the Superintending Engineer, Narnaul requesting that a post be kept reserved for the minor child of the widow in order to consider his case on attaining majority. In the year 2005, petitioner moved an application that her son be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as he had attained age of 17 years and was going to appear in B.A. final year examination. She relied upon letter, Annexure P-2 and instructions issued by government dated 27th March, 1991. However, application was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 18th August, 2006. The petitioner protested and sent representations. However, stand of respondents remained the same. They communicated to the petitioner that there was no provision for employment under new policy dated 3rd August, 2006, thus petitioner was at liberty to opt for financial assistance under the new scheme which would be considered by the department. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred the instant petition before this court.

5. In view of number of cases in which similar question arose and there being conflicting views of various Division Benches, matter was referred to Full Bench by the Single Judge. Needless to observe that facts of each case vary. We have noticed facts from one case, as referred to above.

6. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, referred to the view taken by this court in two Division Benches in case titled as Lalit Sharma vs. State of Haryana in CWP No.6890 of 2007 decided on 11.7.2008 and Sheela Devi vs. State of Haryana and another in CWP No.8844 of 2007 decided on 22.8.2008, and contended that judgments delivered therein contained the correct view. Policy of compassionate appointment being in the nature of a social welfare measure needed liberal interpretation. Thus, the scheme/policy applicable on date of death of the employee should be the relevant for consideration of case of his dependant for appointment on compassionate basis. According to them, the apex court in its recent judgment reported as Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & others, [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 1828] : 2011 (4) SCC 209 has taken the same view.

7. Learned Advocate General Haryana representing the respondents, however, referred to decisions of this court in cases reported as Kuldip Kumar vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2008 (2) SCT 254 and Sudha Rani vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (2) SCT 547. According to him, policy applicable on the date application comes up for consideration is required to be followed. He emphasized that the view taken in these judgments was in right perspective as compassionate appointment is only a concession and not a vested right. Thus, policy in force on date of consideration of the case is applicable. According to him, issue has been finally decided by the apex court in judgment reported as State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar, 2010 (11)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(P&H) 536

Cases Referred (3)