Compassionate appointments must comply with specific norms and cannot be claimed as a right, with eligibility based on financial hardship.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The father of the petitioner died in-harness on 04.05.2021 who was the employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

2. By the letter dated 11.11.2024 by the respondent No.2- Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh the petitioner No.1 has been offered an appointment on the post of driver/conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974”). The petitioner No.1 has declined the aforesaid offer. The petitioner No.1 wants to be appointed to the post of a peon on compassionate grounds.

3. The petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of peon under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

4. Shri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that as per the applicable policy, the appointment on compassionate ground can only be made on the post of driver/conductor and not peon.

5. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel could not dispute that the post of peon is not covered under the policy of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

6. The purpose of grant of compassionate ground appointments can be subserved and their constitutionality can be saved only by strict compliance of the rules governing the grant of compassionate ground appointments.

7. The Supreme Court in the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. Somyashree, [Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021] emphatically reiterated the well settled position of law of making compassionate appointments in conformity with the norms governing the grant of said appointments by summarizing the law as follows:

“7…...(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”

8. The necessity to strictly adhere to rules relating to compassionate grounds was succinctly summarized by the Calcutta High Court in Ipsita Chakrabarti v. State of West Bengal, [(2018) 2 CAL LT 177 (HC)]. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) upon consideration of holdings of various Constitutional Courts held:

“(a) Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception craved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process.

(b) The right of a dependent of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground apart from the above scheme conferred by the employer.

(c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.

(d) Compassionate appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.”

9. Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court in Sr