Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Anoop Kumar Dhand, JJ. dismissed the petition on the ground that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is without any substance.

The brief facts of the case are such that the husband of the petitioner Mool Singh was working on the post of ‘Darban’, expiredin 2003. The petitioner 1 approached the concerned authorities for seeking compassionate appointment for the son i.e. the petitioner 2 Hazari Lal. While considering petitioners’ case by the respondents, they were informed about the ban on direct recruitment on Group “C” and “D” posts. The petitioner 2 made various representations in the year 2005, 2006 wherein the respondent’s authorities informed the petitioners that no post in Group “C” is vacant and denied appointment. After a period of more than ten years of denial of compassionate appointment, the petitioners again started making representations to the authorities wherein the respondents again re-considered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioners. Without challenging the previous orders the petitioners submitted Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the original application of the petitioners on the ground that the request for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioners filed this petition before this Court.

The Court relied on judgment State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 and observed that an appointment to public offices should be made on the basis of competitive merits. It was further observed that once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and the substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground, at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on judgment Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exericsed 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.

The Court thus observed that In the present case also, as already indicated above, the petitioners approached the Tribunal after a lapse of almost 13 years from the date of death of the employee concerned. Hence looking at the material available on the record, and after applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred we are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade.

The Court thus held “this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.”

[Parwati Devi v. Director & Nodal Officer, Ministry of Mines, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 410, decided on 08-02-2022]


For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Mehla

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

Right to choose life partner

Public and private space for obscenity

Obscenity Book Release of EBC

International Arbitration Dialogues

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.