Compassionate appointment is not a right to employment and is meant to provide immediate support to the deceased employee's family. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to general recruitment provisions and does not create an enforceable right.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to promote the petitioner to any suitable post subject to the qualification of the petitioner and for salary of promotional post since the petitioner was eligible for appointment on such post.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner’s father was serving in Irrigation Department who expired during the service in the year 1986. The petitioner applied for service under Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and he was appointed on 3.2.1987 in Class IV in the pay scale of 305-330 on the post of Runner. After his appointment in class IV post petitioner started representing the department for his appointment promotion on the appropriate post according to his qualification.

3. The petition has relied upon Dying in Harness Rules 1974 where sub Clause II provides that an appointment under these rules will be only for existing vacancies. The contention of the petitioner is that in 1991 Rule 8 (3) was amended and by virtue of amendment. The amended rule is quoted below :

mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 8 esa mi fu;e 3 ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr mi fu;e j[k fn;k tk;sxk vFkkZr %

3- bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu dksbZ fu;qfDr fo)eku fjfDr esa dh tk;sxh izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn dksbZ fjfDr fo)eku u gks rks fu;qfDr rqjUr fdlh ,sls vf/kla[; in ds izfr dh tk;sxh ftls bl iz;sktu ds fy, l`ftr fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk vkSj tks rc rd pysxk tc rd dksbZ fjfDr miyC/k u gks tk;sA

4. From the aforesaid amendment from 12th August 1991, it will appear that the appointment was to be made on the existing vacancy. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on the post of class IV on the basis of compassionate ground in the year 1987. He represented for promotion in class III post. The case of the petitioner is that a recommendation was also made on 24.8.1992. The Executive Engineer has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer for consideration according to the educational qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that he has made representation to the respondents on 29.9.2003.

5. After hearing the counsel for the petition and the Standing Counsel for the respondents I am of the opinion that appointment on compassionate ground is not available to the petitioner as appointment is made due to extreme urgency at the relevant time in order to feed back the family members.

6. The Apex Court in 1997 Vol. II SCC page 390 has held that so far as the compensonatary appointment is concerned it is immediate shelter which has been given to the family of the deceased employee. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below :

“In our opinion. Rule 18 of the Rules confers a discretion on the Chairman/ Director (Personnel) to appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service. It is no doubt true that this discretion is not an unfettered discretion and has to be exercised reasonably after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that rehabilitation appointment has to be given in all cases where it becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability and it can be refused only in certain circumstances as indicated by the High Court. In our opinion, the discretion of the competent authority cannot be thus fettered. As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of n employee does not entitled his family to compassionate appointment.”

7. Considering the aforesaid facts the petitioner once appointed on class IV post cannot claim subsequently for class III post as in Birendra Prasad Vishwakarma vs. Chief Medical officer Ballia and others, as under :

“Pursuant to U.P. Recruitment of Depend