IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Sunil Purohit – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 06 of 2024, Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 1 of 2024)
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Employment - Dying-in-Harness Rules - The court interpreted the provisions of compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness rules, emphasizing that once an appointment is accepted, it cannot be upgraded, reinforcing the principle that such appointments are not a matter of right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a compassionate appointment after his father's death, initially appointed to a class-IV post, later requested an upgrade to class-III based on qualifications, which was denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the class-IV position and could not later claim an upgrade to class-III, as the compassionate appointment is a beneficial scheme without a right to upgrade.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could claim an upgrade from a class-IV to a class-III post after accepting the compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a compassionate appointment is accepted, it cannot be upgraded, and such appointments are not a matter of right but a beneficial scheme.
Result: The Special Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. The present Special Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, whereby, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
2. There is a delay of 66 days in preferring the instant Special Appeal. Delay is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, and therefore, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and delay in filing special appeal is condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner/appellant was a regular employee of GMVNL in a class-IV post, who died on 23.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant submitted a representation on 18.09.2019, claiming compassionate appointment being a son of the deceased employee under the dying-in-harness rules. Along with the application, the petitioner/appellant submitted his certificate of educational qualification. Subsequently, the claim of the petitioner/appellant was considered and he was offered the compassionate appointment by an order dated 19.09.2020 on the post of Ardali (class-VI post).
4. This compassionate appointment was on probation for a period of one year, which he voluntarily accepted by reporting joining on 17.10.2020. After completion of one year probation period, the petitioner/appellant was confirmed on 30.10.2021.
5. The petitioner/ appellant earlier preferred a Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 593 of 2022, which was decided by this Court by an order dated 07.04.2022, whereby, the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and pursuant to the direction of this Court, the representation of the petitioner/appellant was rejected by the Managing Director, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “GMVNL”) by an order dated 11 July, 2022, and being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner/appellant again approached to this Court by means of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, which was dismissed on 29.09.2023 and being aggrieved with the same, instant appeal has been filed.
6. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner on class III post and give him joining on class III post as per his educational qualification.
(III) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.
(IV) Award the cost of the petition.”
7. The main ground of challenging the order dated 11.07.2022 before the learned Single Judge was that though the petitioner/appellant was appointed on class-IV post but he was assigned different work and when he was appointed, he was in Tourism Store, from where on 25.08.2021, he was transferred to e-Governance Cell and assigned the work of data digitization. Subsequently, by an another office order dated 02.09.2021, petitioner/ appellant was assigned the work of reservation section in addition to his work of Tourism Store, which was assigned to him. Apart from this assignment of different work, it is also contended that the petitioner/appellant is a graduate and having all eligibilities for appointment to class-III post. Consequently, he submitted a representation again on 11.01.2021 before the respondents stating therein that the petitioner/appellant is a graduate, having computer diploma, as such requested for his claim for appointment on class-III post.
8. Admittedly, the representation was made after acceptance of appointment on class-IV post, which was offered to the petitioner/appellant on 19.09.2020, which he voluntarily accepted by giving his joining on 17.10.2020. This is the main bone of contention of t
Compassionate appointments under the dying-in-harness rules cannot be upgraded once accepted, as they are not a matter of right.
Acceptance of a compassionate appointment in a lower post precludes subsequent claims for a higher post.
Compassionate appointments are not a matter of right and depend on the availability of vacancies; once an appointment is accepted, further claims for higher positions are not permissible.
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 rec....
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is provided to enable the family to tide over a sudden crisis. It is not a source of recruitmen....
The relaxation of government instructions in a similar case estopped the appellant department from denying the respondent's request for appointment against a class-III post.
Once a compassionate appointment is accepted on a Class IV post, the right to such appointment stands exhausted, and seeking upgradation to a higher post is not warranted.
Compassionate appointment is a concession contingent on strict adherence to eligibility criteria, not an absolute right, especially when a family member is already employed in a Government role.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment should be based on the specific provisions of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, and in this c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.