Back
2022 Supreme(All) 393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Laxmi – Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank and Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. - 4339 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shiv Kumar Gupta, Mahrani Deen Yadav
For the Respondent: Krishna Mohan Asthana
Point of law : Object of compassionate appointment is to tide over an immediate financial crisis. It is not a heritable right to be considered after an unreasonable period, for the vacancies cannot be held up for long and that appointment should not ordinarily await the attainment of majority.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1970 – Article 226 – Appointment – General rule – Situation to meet sudden crisis – Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment - It is submitted that compassionate appointment is exception to general rule of appointment and is offered to dependents to tide over situation to meet sudden crisis on account of death of sole bread earner of the family - Object of compassionate appointment is to tide over an immediate financial crisis. (Para 10).
Finding of the court :
So, intention is virtually restore source of livelihood which family has stood denuded of on account of bread winner’s death in harness but where family has survived for more than a decade and there has never been any effort to seek compassionate appointment for all those years passed, claim of divorced daughter on account of her being divorced by her husband in the year 2020, is not liable to be considered as divorce of a married daughter after thirteen years of the death of her father itself cannot be a cause to show compassion in the matter.
Results : Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment raised in her representation dated 18th December, 2021.
3. Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents submits that sole bread earner had died on 27th December, 2007 and all the dues were paid to the dependents and further he submits that no such application for compassionate appointment was filed for a period of 13 years and now for the first time application seeking compassionate appointment was made in the year 2021.
4. It is submitted that the compassionate appointment is exception to the general rule of appointment and is offered to the dependents to tide over the situation to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of sole bread earner of the family.
5. The dependents, who have been able to survive for more than 13 years cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right as no such situation has been pleaded except the fact that earlier married daughter had been divorced by her husband in the year 2020. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P. and others passed in Special Appeal No.-148 of 2022 decided on 1st April, 2022.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having examined the pleadings raised and the documents brought on record, I find merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent bank.
7. The purpose to offer compassionate appointment is to show compassion to the family that has suddenly landed in a crisis for loss of regular income of the deceased bread winner who met an accidental death.
8. Admittedly, mother had been given all the terminal dues and she never made any application for compassionate appointment and she also settled her daughter with her husband. Now, if daughter has got divorced from her husband, that itself cannot be a ground to give compassionate appointment to the divorced daughter after a lapse of thirteen long years. Admittedly, she was not dependent of her father when he died and only mother was dependent, who never came forward to seek appointment on compassionate ground.
9. In the case of Navendra Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.-1601 of 2012) decided on 22nd October, 2021, Division Bench of this Court has held thus:
"The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased -employee to tied over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without means of livelihood, it is an exception to the normal rule of public employment, it is a concession. The basic intention to grant compassionate appointment is that on the death of the employee, his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. It can not be claimed by way of inheritance. Compassionate Appointment can not be treated as a Bonanza. It is not disbursement of gift. It is not sympathy syndrome. It is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis due to death of sole bread winner. If employer finds that Financial arrangement made for family subsequent to death of the employee is adequate members of the family can not insist for compassionate appointment."
10. Another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Asha Mishra (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.-13102 of 2010) decided on 7th May, 2010 has held thus :
"The principles of consideration for compassionate appointment have been firmly settled and have been reiterated from time to time. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an alternate mode of employment. It has to be considered and granted under the relevant rules. The object o
