- (1.) FATHER of the petitioner, who was working as Jeep driver in the office of Drinking water and Sanitation, Circle Chaibasa, had expired in harness on 21.12.2000. For the first time, mother of the petitioner had applied to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 11.06.2010. Request to grant compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 23.9.2011, Annexure no. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that initially father of the petitioner late Arnest Nag was working as work charge employee; his services were regularized after his death vide order dated 28.02.2009, Annexure no. 2 with retrospective effect that is from 01.06.1993; order dated 28.02.2009 was approved by the Government on 7.12.2009, Annexure no.3. Mr. K.M. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the circular no. 4379 dated 16.07.2008 Annexure no. 7, compassionate appointment can only be granted to the dependent of the regular employees. Since the petitioner's father was earlier working as work charge employee, and later on his services were regularized w.e.f.01.06.1993, therefore, before the regularization of service vide Annexure nos. 2 and 3 , there was no question of moving application seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Versus Union of India and others, reported in (2011)4 Supreme Court Cases 209 in paragraph nos. 18,19 and 20 observed as under: "18. Similarly, in SAIL v. Madhusudan Das this Court has observed that: "15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. That the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." 19. In Sivamurthy V. State of A.P. This Court while observing that although appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on compassionate grounds are well recognized exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies, highlighted the following two well recognized contingencies as exceptions to the general rule : ( SCC p. 741, para 18) "(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner." 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations isseud by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employee is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts". In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra) it is, thus, clear that the matter of compassionate appointment on the public post is in exception to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of Rules and Regulations issued by the State or its instrumentality and an application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within reasonable time; compassionate appointment is to meet sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service; compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity. Coming to the facts of the present case, undisputedly on the date of the death of Sri Arnest Nag, father of the petitioner on 31.12.2000, he was working as a work charge employee. Therefore, in view of the circular no. 4379 dated 16.7.2008, Annexation no. 7 to the writ petition, his dependent was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment, which was available only to the dependent of those employees, who were earlier working as work charge employees, but later on their services were regularized and were in service. Not only this, since application for compassionate appointment was moved almost after 10 years of the death of the deceased employee, therefore, purpose of compassionate appointment to meet sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner stands frustrated. Therefore, merely because the services of the petitioner's father were regularized in the year 2008 with retrospective effect does not give any right to the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment in the year 2010. Consequently, present petition fails and is dismissed according.;