While a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment, such employment cannot be granted as a vested right after an unreasonable delay (e.g., 24 years), as the primary object is to alleviate immediate financial crisis following the death of the breadwinner.

O R D E R

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicant is challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be provided to married daughter.

Brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant was working on the post of Postal Assistant, who died in harness on 30.04.2002. Mother of the applicant made various applications seeking grant of compassionate appointment. But no action was taken by the respondents for a considerable period of time. Meanwhile, mother of the applicant became a cancer patient and died on 23.01.2019. The applicant submits that she was totally dependent on her father at the time of his death. Therefore, on 19.04.2022 (Annexure A-7), she preferred an application seeking grant of compassionate appointment to her. Thereafter, she preferred various reminders and ultimately vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure A-1), claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that being a married daughter, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

In their reply, the respondents have stated that Late Shri Suresh Chandra, former ABMP passed away on 30.04.2002. Previously, an application for compassionate appointment was made by his wife Mrs. Uma Joshi on 20.08.2002, which was forwarded by this office for approval to the Regional office on 28.11.2002. The Circle Office vide letter dated 17.01.2003 (Annexure R-2) approved for compassionate appointment of Mrs. Uma Joshi. However, during the pre-appointment process, Mrs. Uma Joshi submitted an application for appointment at the nearest Post Office Branch in Indore. Meanwhile, father of the deceased employee submitted an application stating that his daughter-in-law remarried on 16.06.2003 without informing him and he requested for cancellation of appointment of Mrs. Uma Joshi and requested to grant compassionate appointment to the present applicant upon completing her age of majority. Mrs. Uma Joshi also submitted an application for giving compassionate appointment to the applicant in her place. The applicant submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2022 after 2014. After scrutiny of her case, it was found that the applicant got married in the year 2018. Therefore, as per the Gramin Dak Sevak (Compassionate Appointment) Scheme 2023, a married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of Larger Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in W.A. No.756/2019 dated 02.03.2020 (Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and others), wherein the Larger Bench has dealt with the issue of entitlement of married daughter for compassionate appointment and decided the case in favour of married daughter.

We are in respectful agreement with the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Meenakshhi Dubey (supra) and have no hesitation to hold that the married daughter likewise the applicant is also entitled for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment.

But whether the compassionate appointment can be claimed as a matter of right that too after several years from the date of death of the breadwinner, is the question to be addressed in this Original Application.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

''2.....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not enti