Gauhati High Court Declines Compassionate Appointment Due To Delay But Grants Compensation For 'Arbitrary' Rejection
In a writ petition seeking a direction for fresh consideration of a compassionate appointment claim, the Gauhati High Court has held that such relief cannot be granted where nearly 13 years have elapsed since the death of the employee, observing that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief and must be proximate to the date of death, and that in the present case the claim had become stale.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, presiding over the case, held, “The learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the case of the petitioner admittedly not being considered in the manner required by the State Level Committee, a direction is called upon to be issued for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner. This Court has examined the said contention of the petitioner. This Court notices that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 14-05-2012 and around 13 (thirteen) years have lapsed since then.”
“The purpose behind providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the family, in pursuance to the death of a Government servant. Such appointment is to be made proximate to the time of death of the Government servant. In the case on hand, considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the immediacy required to be complied for extending an appointment to the family of the petitioner is lost. The claim of the petitioner has been rendered a stale one. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court to pass a direction upon the respondent authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate grounds,” the Court added.
The petitioner's father, who was working as Jugali in the Information & Public Relations Department, died in harness in 2012. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the same year. His case was recommended by the District Level Committee in its meeting in 2014. Respondent no.7's case was also later recommended. Both recommendations were placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting in 2019.
In the said meeting, the SLC rejected the petitioner's claim stating that his application had spent its force and that no vacancy was available. However, in the same meeting, respondent no.7's case was recommended by recording that vacancies were available and that the applications had not spent their force.
The Court while not being satisfied with the explanation so set out by the respondent authority, noted, “In the event the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that his application having remained pending for 02 years, had spent its force and there were no vacancies available for such consideration during the period, the claim of the respondent No. 7 could not have been recommended, inasmuch as, the reasoning assigned in respect of the petitioner also stood attracted in the case of the respondent No. 7.”
Thus, the Court opined that the petitioner, was discriminated against by the SLC while considering his application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
“Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court noticing that the respondent No. 7 was appointed on compassionate ground on 18-11-2021 and has by now completed 04 (four) years of such service, this Court restrains itself from proceeding to interfere with such appointment effected in respect of the respondent No. 7, herein,” the Court stated.
However, having concluded that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not considered by the SLC in the manner required, the Court opined that the petitioner was required to be compensated with, and accordingly, it directed, “the respondent authority to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), as compensation for the deprivation caused to him in the matter of consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground.”
Case Title: Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C)/1790/2022