D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3141 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25-11-2016 (Reported in 2017(3) AJR 692) whereby the claim for getting compassionate appointment has been rejected by the learned single Judge, and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.
(2.) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that father of the appellant No. 1 expired on 25-5-2003. Thereafter 14 years period have elapsed by now. The very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. It ought to be kept in mind that compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of appointment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same is given as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with a view to give immediate financial support to the family of the deceased employee. Lapse of time is a crucial factor for denial of the compassionate appointment.
(3.) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, 1994 2 SCC 718 in paragraphs 10, 11 and 13, which read as under:- "10. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. No doubt Shakespeare said in "Merchant of Venice": "The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath it is twice bless'd; It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes;" These words will not apply to all situations. Yeilding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered that "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 11. At this juncture we may usefully refer to Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1966 AIR(SC) 529. At page 535 of the Report the following observations are found: "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A sttute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not." The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should never be done. In the very case itself, there are regulations and instructions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of these statutory provisions. Clause 2 of sub-clause (iii) of instructions makes it clear that relaxation could be given only when none of the members of the family is gainfully employed. Clause 4 of the circular dated January 20, 1987 interdicts such an appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. 13. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside.";