Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed a petition after considering the facts of the case and found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The factual matrix of the instant case is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of Union Bank of India and he died in harness on 23-04-2002. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner had already put in more than five years of service in the Bank and was over 35 years old. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he laid his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 22-11-2006. The petitioner has filed petitions for a compassionate appointment two times and both were rejected, first time, under the policy of 2003 and the second time under the policy of 2007. 

The Court held that in the light of the Judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1187, it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in the light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of the application. The Court observed that the above-mentioned aspect is an academic issue because both the policies, i.e. which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the first time and the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, do not cover the case of the petitioner. As per the policy of 2003, which was in force at the time of consideration of the application for the first time, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment because he had laid his claim after the expiry of more than four years, whereas as per the policy which was in force on the date of consideration i.e. policy of 2007, of his application for the second time, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had already completed more than five years of service in the Bank and was above 30 years. 

In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any of the policies. [Deepak Sharma v. Union Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2664, decided on 04-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This writ petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. against an order where respondent was granted appointment on compassionate ground.

Facts of the case were that respondent was the son of the first wife of deceased who was employed as a Class-IV employee in the Junior High School. Respondent was given appointment on compassionate ground whereby respondent had undertaken to take care of the petitioners also. The grievance of petitioner was that he should have been the one to be appointed. Petitioner contended that respondent had not extended any benefit to petitioner and failed to keep his commitment of taking care of other family members. Court observed that the deceased died in the harness and respondent was his heir thus the appointment of respondent on compassionate grounds was not in question and the order passed by District Basic Education Officer approving his appointment did not suffer from any illegality.

High Court viewed that by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 the order was made with the purpose of casting an obligation upon the person, who was appointed to support other family members. If respondent had failed to adhere to his commitment the benefit given to him could be taken away. Therefore, the direction was given to consider the application of the petitioner. [Yashoda Devi v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 2867, order dated 26-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ. and Parth Prateem Sahu, J. declared that being an informed decision on the part of the appellant refrains him on refuting it at a later stage.

The appellant has preferred an appeal on the refusal of a direction to appoint him for the post of ASI (Ministerial).

His father was working in the armed forces and after his death, the appellant’s grant of compassionate appointment was considered. But due to the availability of posts and a certain weightage bestowed upon dependants of people dead in Naxal violence, instead of the post appealed for he was granted the post of Constable (General Duty). Accordingly, he was given an option to either accept or refuse the decision to which the appellant gave an acceptance and subsequently after his joining in the year 2017 he filed for his reappointment for a higher post.

The Court took into consideration the fact that he was not the only one treated in the above matter and thus the issue of arbitrariness was out of question also once a person accepts appointment on compassionate ground, he cannot demand or beget any change on the post or position which he had been offered by way of compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.[Deepak Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh,2018 SCC OnLine Chh 655, order dated 15-11-2018]


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Debasish Kar Gupta and Shampa Sarkar, JJ. dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution due to inordinate delay in filing the application thereunder.

Father of the petitioner was working for gain as a temporary employee with Respondent 3. He died in harness in 1986. The petitioner was a minor, 11 years old, at the relevant time. After four years of attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application to Respondent 3 for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the application was rejected and further, the appeal filed before the Administrative Tribunal was also dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Tribunal in the instant petition.

The High Court perused the record and found that the petitioner was a minor at the relevant time. The Court held it to be settled law that a minor had no vested right to claim appointment at the time of the death of his father in harness. The Court also took notice of unexplained inordinate delay of over four years in submitting the application for appointment even after attaining majority. The High Court found no fault with the impugned decision of the Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the petition was dismissed. [Kamal Adhikari v.  State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3394, dated 04-06-2018]