Compassionate appointments in armed services must be approached humanely, recognizing the need for welfare for families of injured personnel, making such claims justiciable under constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

We prelude this judgment with what George Orwell (1903- 1950) said “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to suffer violence on their behalf.” { George Orwell’s Essays, Notes on the Way, 1945. }

The 1^st respondent was a CRPF Police. Whilst in combat duty in Srinagar, he suffered acute physical disability because of bomb blast engineered by terrorists. This was on 23.01.2007. He was discharged from service on 07.03.2014. The 2^nd respondent happens to be his dependent wife. The request for her compassionate appointment having been turned down, vide order dated 18.06.2020, the couple filed W.P.(C) No. 26534 of 2020. The same came to be favoured by single judge, vide order dated 21.10.2024. Aggrieved thereby this Intra-Court appeal is filed by the Union Government & its officials.

2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the appellants made the following submissions seeking invalidation of the impugned order:

2.1. The learned Single Judge erred in granting relief of the kind when the 2^nd respondent was rightly offered the post of Constable (Ground Duty), which she refused to accept; the said post is also one of the posts comprised in the cadre along with that of Head Constable (Ministerial Cadre). A person cannot lay a claim for a particular post on compassionate ground, the right to compassionate appointment being only a privilege.

2.2. When the cadre comprises of multiple posts of different grades, the appointing authority has a discretion to appoint the claimant on compassionate ground to any of those posts, and that such a discretion is not susceptible to judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.3. Learned Single Judge grossly erred in not duly considering the submission of Appellants that the 2013 Scheme for compassionate appointment has to be construed consistent with Standing Orders No.5 of 2001 and therefore, the Written Test was imperative even for appointment under Rehabilitatory Scheme; the claimant lady having secured only 50/200 marks, had not passed this test.

Learned Senior Panel Counsel presses into service a decision of Apex Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlata , AIR 2021 SC 846.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents opposes the appeal refuting the submissions hereinabove made by the Appellants. He contends that the learned Single Judge has handed the impugned order after duly considering all aspects of the matter, it has brought about a just result in the circumstances and therefore, interference at the hands of this Court is uncalled for. He also tells that in Intra-Court appeal, examination of impugned order should not be like a roving enquiry, in the absence of demonstrable errors of great magnitude in the impugned order.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of learned Single Judge. However, we also put on record our following discussion.

4.1. Nature & scope of compassionate appointment

4.1.1. The idea of compassionate appointments has been holding the field for quite some time, in public employment. The idea becomes pronounced when the appointing authority is the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions like R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , AIR 1979 SC 1628 . The obligation to confer compassionate appointment is one of the attributes of a Welfare State, which has to conduct itself as a Model Employer. The precise connotation of the idea, however, was not l