Compassionate appointments are granted to alleviate immediate hardship due to a breadwinner's death, and significant delays in applications can negate claims for such relief.

ORDER :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1.This petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief (s) :-

“(i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per his qualification.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the father of petitioner had died in harness on 26.08.2002. At that time, petitioner was only 10 years of age. Even otherwise, on the date of death of the father of petitioner, there was no policy for appointment on compassionate grounds. Later, on 22.05.2018, a policy was implemented, according to which, dependents of employees who died between 15.11.2000 to 10.04.2012 on account of any accident while working, electric accident, murder, or on account of vehicular accident while working would also be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted by petitioner that although the father of petitioner had died in harness in 2002 and at that point of time there was no policy for appointment on compassionate grounds, but in view of Clause 1.1 (v) of the policy of the year 2018, respondents are liable to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further submitted that the petitioner has five siblings but counsel for petitioner was not in a position to make a submission as to whether the siblings are younger or elder to petitioner.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that the case of petitioner is not covered by Clause 1.1 (v) of the policy for appointment on compassionate grounds; therefore, he is not entitled to consideration of his application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. by judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855/2022 has held as under :-

“7.1. . . . . . .

v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.

vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held tha