D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment dated 6th May, 2016 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5902 of 2014, whereby the said petition preferred by this appellant praying for compassionate appointment has been rejected and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that father of the appellant (original petitioner) died in harness on 28th June, 1987. At that time the age of this appellant was five years who attained the age of majority in the year 1999, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant.
(3.) Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, It appears that application for compassionate appointment was preferred after several years and it was rejected on 31st July, 2013. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is only after attaining majority this appellant (original petitioner) can get the compassionate appointment and therefore ground of delay in filing application for compassionate appointment is not applicable. This contention is accepted by this court mainly for the following reasons: (a) It is an admitted fact that father of the appellant expired in the month of June, 1987. After several years application was filed for compassionate appointment. It appears that during this period the appellant has managed to sustain on his own and therefore, the very purpose of compassionate appointment is frustrated by now. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to generate employment for the legal heirs of the deceased employee, at any time, but, to support his family during the financial crisis that arise due to sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family. Compassionate appointment cannot be given to the legal heir of the deceased employee after lapse of a period of more than one or two decades. (b) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 in paragraphs 2 to 6, which read as under: "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible. 4. It is for these reasons that we have 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 Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does 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 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 dependant nor the post which he held is relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment: "We are of the view that the extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies and it is open to the Government in real hard cases to deviate from the letter and spirit of the instructions and to provide relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as a matter of law that the Government cannot deviate even minutely from the policy of providing appointment only against Class III and Class IV posts, would be to ignore the reality of life these days. It would be ridiculous to expect that a dependant of a deceased Class I Officer, should be offered appointment against a Class III or IV post. While we leave it to the Government to exercise its discretion judiciously in making appointments to Class I or II posts on compassionate grounds, yet a word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted that such appointments should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact, we would recommend that the Government should frame a policy even for such appointments." 5. It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above Classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free to do so. The post is offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. 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 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." (emphasis supplied) (c) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 in paragraph 3, which reads as under: "3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 261988, the petitioner was a minor and was eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief." (emphasis supplied) (d) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 in paragraphs 10 to 13, which read as under: "10. Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the issue as to whether employment on compassionate grounds could be asked for in a case of deemed death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it can be so demanded and asked for, such a right should and could have been exercised in the year 1988 and computing the period of five years therefrom the period of limitation for making an application for employment in the case of the appellant expired in the year 1993. 11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. 13. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do permit us for issuing any such directions. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed." (emphasis supplied) (e) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 in paragraphs 6 to 9, which read as under: "6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is a vested right. The Court should stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 7. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 14041, paras 2, 4 and 6) "2. ... The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. ... 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. 4. ... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. * * * 6. ... The consideration for such employment is a vested right.... The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis ...." (emphasis added) 8. An "ameliorating relief" should be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 9. The courts and the tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did cover and contemplate such appointments." (emphasis supplied);