6 April 2022 4:02 AM GMT
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging...
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.
This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging the decision of a single judge.
The case in brief
The petitioner-Iqbal Khan was offered compassionate appointment in May 2015 and he accepted the offer and joined on the post of Lab Attendant. After about four years, he filed a writ petition claiming that he has the qualification for the post of Pharmacist and, therefore, a mandamus may be issued to the respondents to appoint/absorb him on the post of Pharmacist in place of the post of Lab Attendant considering his qualification.
This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned judgment and order passed by the single Judge on two grounds firstly, the appointment on the post of Pharmacist is to be made through U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission which has been notified by the Commission for selection and secondly, the petitioner has otherwise acquiesced to his appointment on the post of Lab Attendant.
It was his submission before the division bench that as per Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the appointment has to be given by the employer in accordance with the qualification of the candidate applying for compassionate appointment under Rules 1974.
It was his further contention that even if the petitioner had accepted the appointment on the post of Lab Attendant under the Rules 1974, yet, his claim for the post of Pharmacist on the basis of qualification, can not be denied by the respondents.
At the outset, the division bench referred to an array of Supreme Court and Allahabad HC rulings to explain the object and principles of Compassionate Appointment. The Court also relied upon the 2021 ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited Through its Chairman an Managing Director and Ors. Vs. Parden Oraon LL 2021 SC 205.
In this case, a bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat had observed that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. "Consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future," it observed.
In this case, the wife of an employee who was missing since 2002 requested the Central Coalfields Ltd. for compassionate appointment of her son. This was rejected on the ground that the employee was already dismissed from service and therefore, the request for compassionate appointment could not be entertained.
Significantly, the Allahabad High Court also referred to the rulings of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka vs. V. Somyashree LL 2021 SC 449 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlatha LL 2021 SC 540, wherein it was held that a dependent/applicant cannot seek compassionate appointment on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee.
In Premlatha case (supra), the Bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed that the appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. It is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood
Moving ahead, the HC observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased - employee to tied over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without means of livelihood and that, it is an exception to the normal rule of public employment, it is a concession.
Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court in their significant rulings, the Court, in the end, did not find any error of law in the impugned Judgment. Hence, the Special Appeal was DISMISSED.
Case title - Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Click Here To Read/Download Order