Compassionate appointment is not an automatic right and is subject to scrutiny based on various parameters, including the financial position of the family and the economic dependence on the deceased employee. Delay in pursuing the claim and approaching the court would militate against the claim for compassionate appointment.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief : –

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner was working as a daily wager and he died in the year 2011. Since the father of the petitioner has worked for more than 20 years, therefore, he had automatically acquired the status of permanent employee. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 30-9-2021, however, the application was rejected by order dated 1-11-2021. The petitioner has once again made an application, but the same has not been decided so far and, accordingly, the present petition has been filed seeking the above-mentioned relief. It is further submitted that financial condition of the family of the petitioner is bad and the same can be one of the criteria for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. To buttress his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another vs. Nanak Chand and another, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 487 and State of Haryana and others vs. Rani Devi and another, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 308.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground can be granted only on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing at the time of death of deceased employee. No document has been placed on record to show the scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is a speedy remedy and if the family of the deceased employee could survive for a considerable long time, then that itself is sufficient to reject the claim. To buttress his contention, counsel for the State has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Gouri Devi, reported in AIR 2022 SC 783 and Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and ors. vs. Parden Oraon, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1876. It is further submitted that as per the scheme, which is inforce from the year 2014, the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within a period of seven years from the date of death of deceased employee and if the aspirant is minor on the date of death, then he can make an application within a period of one year from the date of attaining the majority. As per the birth certificate, the petitioner was 11 years of age on the date of death of his father and, thus, it is clear that he had attained the age of majority in the year 2018, whereas the application was filed for the first time on 30-9-2021.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. According to the petitioner himself, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by order dated 1-11-2021 (Annexure P-3). For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not sought the quashment of the said order. So long as the order dated 1-11-2021 (Annexure P-3) remains intact, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that the remedy of compassionate appointment is a speedy remedy which has been provided for the dependents of the deceased employee to tide over the circumstances occurred due to untimely death of their breadwinner. The appointment on compassionate ground is not an alternative mode of regular appointment. Furthermore, father of the petitioner had worked as a daily wager. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of law which was in vogue on the date of death of father to show that even the dependents of daily wager were entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 has held as under :

18.