- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the paper -book. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.9.2005 (Annexure P -8), whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds, has been rejected by the respondents -Assurance Company. The respondents have clearly mentioned in the order that the petitioners cannot be granted appointment on compassionate grounds, since the claim has been made after a lapse of six years. It has also been mentioned that employment on compassionate grounds has been stopped by the Assurance Company w.e.f. 1.10.2002. Mr. Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 2 was a minor. Petitioner No. 1 has made the application for appointment of petitioner No. 2 only when petitioner No. 2 has reached the age of majority. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds has to be considered under the policy which was prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. on 30.12.1998. Merely because, subsequently, the policy has been scrapped would not be a ground for denying the appointment to the petitioners on compassionate grounds.
(2.) WE are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) SCT 174 (SC) : 1994(4) SCC 138. Repeatedly, it has been held by the Supreme Court that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter or right. The purpose for granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to remove the immediate hardship that would be caused to the family of the deceased employee who died in harness. The purpose is not to grant appointment to the dependents of the deceased as a replacement for the deceased employee. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), it has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court as follows : - "2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class III and IV are the lowest posts in non -manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. 3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and Public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Class III and IV. This is legally impermissible. 4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Class III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, 1989(4) SLR 327 has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class II posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependent nor the post which he held is relevant...."
(3.) IN view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;