ORDER :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :—

“a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash orders dated 13-11-2000 (P/3) and 24-6-2002 (P/5);

b. Direct the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment within a time bound period;

c. Any other relief/order, which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in the end of justice.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that on 30-9-1996, father of the petitioner who was working as meter reader in the department of Public Health Engineering, Panna Block died in harness. At that time, petitioner was minor and accordingly after attaining majority, she applied for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 5-9-2000. By letter dated 13-11-2000, the application was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner again moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by order dated 24-6-2002 on the ground that petitioner has already got married and married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that now petitioner has once again made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, respondents may be directed to decide the same.

3. Heard learned counsel for parties.

4. The father of the petitioner had died in the year, 1996. Her first application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in the year, 2000. Her second application was rejected in the year 2002. Now, without any legal provision, petitioner has made a third application for appointment on compassionate ground. Appointment on compassionate ground is not an alternative mode of direct recruitment. It is an exception to the constitutional scheme as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Delay in appointment on compassionate ground by itself is fatal to the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground. If a person can survive for a long time, after the death of bread winner, then the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground would get frustrated.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. vs. Debabrata Tiwari and ors., decided on 3rd March, 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855 of 2022 has held as under :—

“7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge :

i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the