Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a legal right, and requires compliance with specific provisions while emphasizing immediate application to demonstrate need.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 24.10.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.4 whereby it was stated that the application for compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the instructions dated 02.08.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent-UHBVNL as CKD and died in harness on 23.06.2017 at the age of 41 years. At that time, the petitioner was 17 years and 6 months old. attaining majority, the petitioner immediately applied for a job on compassionate grounds, however, neither a job was granted nor any reply was provided. During the pendency of the correspondence, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam adopted the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure P-3) (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2019’) notified on 02.08.2019. The said Rules contain a saving clause stipulating that the family of government employees who died before the date of notification of the Rules but were not sanctioned compassionate financial assistance by the competent authority, may exercise an option within a period of 06 months, deciding whether they want to avail benefits of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2006) or the Rules of 2019. As such, the Rules of 2006 do not act as a bar on compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel further submits that when no action was taken, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure P-4) pursuant to which, the respondents raised an objection and asked for an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner and his siblings forego the claim for family pension and arrears. The requisite affidavit was also furnished, a copy of which is available at Annexure P-5. Aggrieved by the lack of decision on part of the respondents, the mother of the petitioner moved a representation requesting for the case of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment. Without examining the request, respondent No.4 passed impugned order dated 24.10.2023 (Annexure P-7) stating that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the Rules of 2019.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate financial assistance in the year 2017, which was provided vide office order dated 26.10.2017 in terms of Rules of 2006. While applying for financial assistance, the petitioner and his sister submitted an affidavit (Annexure R- 1), duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, stating that as major members of the family of the deceased, they forego their claim to all pensionary benefits and the same be paid to their mother only. Since compassionate assistance has already been provided to the mother of the deceased in terms of Rules of 106, which does not contain provisions for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner has remained undecided. Therefore, the provisions of Rules of 2019 would not apply to the case at hand. Lastly, the petitioner has raised a claim for compassionate appointment after about 04 years from the death of his father- deceased employee, and is therefore, also barred by delay and laches.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the father of the petitioner died on 23.06.2017 while h