Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is granted as a concession to provide immediate relief to the family.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"(i) That, the respondents no. 1 and 2 be directed to grant approval to compassionate appointment to the petitioner under grant-in-aid and release the salary from the date of appointment.

(ii) any other relief which this Honb'le Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be granted,

(iii) Costs may also be awarded."

2. It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father Kedar Singh who was working as Asstt. Teacher in Aided Primary School Chandokhar, Tahsil Ambah, District Morena passed away on 13.2.2008 while in service. The petitioner duly applied for grant of compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that despite of submitting an application for compassionate appointment the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter. Thus, he has prayed that a time bound direction be given to the respondent authorities to decide the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has denied the contents of the writ petition. It is contended that the basic object of granting compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of the deceased employee is to bring the family out of harness and to provide immediate financial help to the family who has lost bread earner. It is contended that the petitioner's father passed away on 13.2.2008 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed on 6.12.2019. Therefore, consideration of application after almost 11 years is not maintainable. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of record, it is seen that petitioner has filed an application to the school/society for grant of compassionate appointment which has not been decided by the respondent authorities till date. It is seen that the death of the father of petitioner has taken place in the year 2008. They have survived after the death of his father almost 11 years. Law regarding compassionate appointment is settled. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is a form of concession which has been provided by the employer to one of the family members of the deceased employee who dies in harness just to overcome the hardship and difficulties being faced by family members of the deceased employee but the same looses validity by lapse of time. After passage of considerable period, the basic object for providing employment looses its significance.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and Another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in AIR 2015 SC 2411 has held as under :

"Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent. It was submitted that 'Dying in Harness Scheme' is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. It was further submitted that the compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to the deceased-employee and cannot be granted on the passage of time and in all these cases, the concerned employee died about two decades ago and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon number of judgments: Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana And Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Da