Point of Law: Grant of compassionate appointment - Purpose of compassionate grounds appointments to tide over sudden crisis resulting from death of earner in a family. However reservation of a vacancy to enable such person to attain majority was negative by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, this case is being heard through video conferencing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the respondent - State.

3. Brief fact of the case is that petitioner's father died on 22.07.1985 while holding the post of Constable. At that time the petitioner was minor as her date of birth is 03.02.1984 and after attaining majority on 02.02.2002, she moved an application on 02.02.2005 for grant of compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is repeatedly requesting to the respondents to ensure appointment on the compassionate ground in accordance with her qualification, however, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and are not taking decision in the matter.

5. Aquery was made to learned counsel for the petitioner that why the petitioner approached to this court after a long spell of time of almost 15 years, he submitted that after attaining majority, the petitioner was continuously making applications before the respondent department but the same could not be decided and now she has filed the present writ petition before this court. He submitted that in case direction is issued for consideration of claim of the petitioner, ends of justice would be met.

6. On the other hand, learned ACSC submitted that there are latches of more than 15 years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court from the date she attained majority and moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Relevant fact for consideration before this Court is that father of the petitioner was working as Constable under Civil Police and was posted under Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh. He died on 22.07.1985 by sustaining a bullet injury while an encounter with dacoits in district Azamgarh and at that time the petitioner was minor. She attained majority on 02.02.2002 and moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on 02.02.2005 and reminder to the same was moved on 02.09.2020.

9. Grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent -department is regulated and governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

10. The concept of dying in harness is unique to Service Law Jurisprudence.

11. The validity of the concept of appointments on the basis of an employee dying in harness was called in question before the courts. The constitutional validity of the aforesaid appointments soon came to be tested. The compassionate ground appointments passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. The justification to make compassionate ground appointments was provided on the footing that the kin of the deceased stood on the brink of financial penury or faced an immediate financial crisis on account of the death of working member of the family. This feature alone constituted the kin of a deceased employee into one class and on the footing alone the rationale of compassionate ground appointments was justified.

12. It would be apposite to reinforce the narrative with good authority.

13. The purpose of compassionate appointments provides their justification. The death of a bread winner forces the family of the deceased into penury. The immediacy of the financial crisis creates the requirement for urgent redressal. The concept of compassionate appointments is created only to enable the bereaved family to tide over the immediate financial crisis.

14. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, reported at (1994) 4 SCC 138, explained the purpose of compassionate appointment as under:

"2. The question relates