- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a relief to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his deceasedfather who died on 24.5.1983 in harness. The application for compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2002. It is also alleged in the petition that uncle of the petitioner had applied for the said appointment on 11.6.1984 which was rejected on the ground that one of the dependents of the deceased i.e. the wife of the deceased, was already in employment under the respondents. Thereafter in the year 2002, the application was moved by the petitioner on the ground that he has by then attained majority.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1983; thereafter an application was moved by uncle of the petitioner for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that one of the dependents i.e. wife of the deceased employee was already in service of the BCCL and thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 which was at a much belated stage of about 16 years from the date of death of the employee and that is why the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the contention and contended that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and so he could not file the application.
(3.) The time limit for filing application for compassionate appointment is normally one year from the date of death of the employee. If no application is filed well within the time, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In the instant case, there is delay of not only months, but years and years have passed for filing the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is also not in dispute that one of the dependents i.e. wife of the deceased was already in service while he died in harness. The appointment in public service on compassionate ground has been carved out as exception in the interest of justice as the appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit and no other mode of appointment; nor any other consideration is permissible. The main purpose of such compassionate appointment is made purely on humanitarian consideration on account of the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to meet both ends' meal. The whole object of granting such appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138] has held that :- "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 services 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 interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants 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 dependants 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 Classes 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 dependant 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 ";