The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment filed by a son (seeking a job in place of his father) while noting that his mother is already in Government Service, and therefore, as per the State policy on compassionate appointments, he can't be given employment assistance.
The Bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya also observed that a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the State in this regard.
Importantly, the Court also relied upon Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & another Versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3, SCC 653, wherein it was observed thus:
"It is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment...The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment."
Case in brief
Essentially, one Moti Ram had moved to the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking compassionate appointment by arguing that his father was working as a T-Mate with the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited and he had died while in service in March 2007 and therefore, he was entitled to the appointment in his place.
He further submitted that when he approached the Board seeking his appointment on a compassionate basis, his case was wrongly rejected on the ground that since his mother was already serving in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, therefore, he was not entitled to the appointment on a compassionate basis.
On the other hand, the State Electricity board submitted that as per Clause-5 (c) of the Policy dated 18.1.1990 [dealing with the appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance.], the case of the petitioner had been rightly rejected.
It was argued that since the mother of the petitioner was already in a Government job, therefore, he could not have been given govt job on a compassionate basis.
The Court, while taking into account the policy of the state in this regard, noted that the petitioner was not entitled to the appointment on the compassionate basis in view of Clause-5(c) of the relevant policy as his mother was already in a government job.
Hence, the court held that the respondents had rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for his appointment on a compassionate basis. Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea on the ground that no cause for interference was made out.
Case title - Moti Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 1