Compassionate appointment is a concession to be granted promptly to alleviate immediate financial hardship and should not be treated as a right or an alternative source of recruitment. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in circumstances where the petitioner has voluntarily chosen to acquire education on the alleged promise of a job.

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 23.03.2018 and 12.10.2018 passed by the respondent no.3-Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, by which the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment had been rejected. In the order dated 26.03.2018, it has been noted, the Committee constituted for grant of compassionate appointment had observed-the claimant family had survived for sufficient time after the occurrence of the death of the employee/petitioner's father, Sri Shyam Sunder Shukla, on 12.10.2015. Therefore, it was assumed the family had dependable means of sustenance. By the subsequent order dated 12.10.2018, it had been further observed-the petitioner's mother was being paid family pension of Rs. 17,731/- per month and his brother was gainfully employed, getting a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Therefore, it had been inferred, the family of the petitioner was neither indigent nor under financial distress as may call for grant of compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, initially upon the death of his father, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment had been favourably considered by the bank. The then Zonal Head of the bank had issued a letter dated 06.08.2016 assuring the petitioner to create a lien for the next five years-to grant compassionate appointment, on a clerical post. During that time period the petitioner was expected to acquire a graduation degree, being the minimum qualification required for a clerical post. Therefore, it has been submitted, the impugned orders passed by the Zonal Manager rejecting the claim of the Manager are wholly contrary to the lien created and promise held out by the bank.

4. Sri Ajay Shankar, Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit, in matters of grant of compassionate appointment, there could never arise a lien in favour of the petitioner. A compassionate appointment by very nature, is an exception to the general rule of equal opportunity to be granted in matters of employment, based on merit considerations. It has to be granted to tide over the immediate and extreme financial hardship that may visit the family of a deceased employee.

5. In this regard, it has been submitted, besides their other financial assets, the bank had paid to the family of the deceased employee, terminal dues of about Rs. 27,00,000/-. Over and above that, family pension in excess of Rs. 17000/- per month was being paid to the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, it has been submitted there was no error in the orders impugned in the present writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the first place, it is difficult to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there ever existed a lien in favour of the petitioner as may have extended for a period of five years from the date of death of his father. Also, compassionate appointment, being regulated by terms of a binding rule/scheme tends to confer a concession, in favour of those persons who may have been hit by an unfortunate and unforeseen loss of life of the sole bread winner of their family. Yet, by very nature, it is not an alternative source of recruitment. It remains a concession to be availed and granted promptly, in cases of extreme financial hardship that may arise on account of sudden occurrence of death of a person who may leave behind unfulfilled financial commitments towards his family and hopes that may not be allowed to wither or fade for want of minimal financial means required to protect human dignity and fair opportunity in life, to the surviving members of the family of the deceased.

7. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192, had considered the legality of grant of compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court held the same to be an exception made to the general