- (1.) The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the death of Surinder Singh, who is stated to have adopted the petitioner. It is not disputed that Surinder Singh died on 01.09.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, on attaining the age of majority and after completing her graduation in Engineering, applied for the job on compassionate grounds as per the representation dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure P-6). As per the affidavit filed, it is not disputed that the petitioner has done B.Tech (Electronics) and is over 21 years old. The respondents offered her solatium of Rs.3,00,000/- vide cheque dated 07.04.2015, due to which, she has approached this Court saying that she is not interested in the amount but only interested in the job.
(2.) The said right of appointment on compassionate grounds after such a long period has been frowned upon by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994 AIR(SCW) 2305, in which, it has been held that the compassionate appointment is not another source of recruitment to the exclusion of others who are entitled. The relevant observations read thus:- "6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 7. It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the Government or the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis."
(3.) In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Another, 1996 8 SCC 23, the direction to appoint on compassionate ground, issued by this Court, was set aside by noting that the the purpose of compassionate appointment was an exception and the consideration for such appointment could not be kept pending for years. Relevant observations read as under: "9. It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal, 1994 AIR(SCW) 2305 that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. 10. It appears to us that the principle of compassionate appointment as indicated in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, is not only reasonable but consistent with the principle of employment in government and public sector. The impugned decisions of the High Court therefore can not be sustained.";