Compassionate appointment is a privilege not a right, requiring timely application under applicable policy.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) -

The petitioner through instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been declined.

2. Petitioner's father was working with respondent-Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Limited as 'work mate'. He passed away in harness on 03.09.1996. As per applicable policy, petitioner's mother was paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards ex-gratia compassionate amount. The petitioner, at that point of time was 5 years old, thus, there was no opportunity to apply for job. As per applicable policy, he was required to submit application within 6 months from attaining the age of 17 years. He attained age of 17 years in 2008 but did not apply for the job. He even did not apply after attaining age of majority. As per record, he served legal notice on 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-7) seeking appointment as per policy of 2019. He made a representation within 6 months from the date of introduction of 2019 policy which came into force w.e.f. 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-12).

3. Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate submits that petitioner's mother was paid a paltry sum of Rs. 70,000/- at the time of death of her husband. The petitioner was 5 years old, thus, there was no question to get employment. As per policy of 2019, every person who has not been granted benefit as per policy of 2006 was entitled to move application within 6 months from the date of introduction of said policy. The petitioner within 6 months from the date of introduction of 2019 policy applied for the post, thus, respondent was bound to consider his claim. The respondent has considered claim of similarly situated claimants but petitioner has wrongly been isolated. The act of respondent amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India .

4. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsel perused the record.

5. Concededly, father of petitioner passed away on 03.09.1996.

Petitioner's mother at the time of death of his father was paid ex-gratia compassionate amount of Rs. 70,000/-. He attained majority in 2009 whereas he applied for compassionate appointment in 2019 after introduction of 2019 policy. As per 2019 policy, a person who has not been sanctioned compassionate financial assistance could apply within 6 months from the date of introduction of said policy. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting 2019 policy to the effect that compassionate financial assistance must have been paid under 2006 policy. The question of payment under 2006 policy could arise, had the employee passed away after 2006. The case of petitioner was governed by 1993 policy and his mother was paid compassionate financial assistance as per said policy. He was required to move an application within 6 months from attaining the age of 17 years. The requirement of filing application within 6 months from attaining the age of 17 years could be slightly modified but the said period cannot be stretched to 10 years. Had the petitioner applied within 6 months from attaining the age of majority instead of 17 years, this Court would have considered his case but he moved application after introduction of 2019 policy which was not applicable at all to him.

6. The object of compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment is to protect family of the deceased employee from destitution, penuiy and starvation. The object of the appointment on compassionate ground is not to give a member of the deceased employee's family a post, much less a post for a post held by the deceased but to p