1 Nov 2022 6:13 AM GMT
Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a writ petition against denial of compassionate appointment over 19 years delay, observed that compassionate appointment should not be treated as a "reservation" of any kind. The bench comprising Justice Arun Monga observed,Trite it is to say that compassionate appointment is not to be treated as a reservation of any kind. It is...
Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a writ petition against denial of compassionate appointment over 19 years delay, observed that compassionate appointment should not be treated as a "reservation" of any kind.
The bench comprising Justice Arun Monga observed,
Trite it is to say that compassionate appointment is not to be treated as a reservation of any kind. It is merely benevolent measure undertaken by an employer to ameliorate the immediate penury of family members of a deceased employee, who dies in harness, and the family is visited with sudden and extreme hardship in the given situation where there is no other earning member in the family.
It further added that death of the petitioner's father took place way back in 2003 and 19 years later, it cannot be the case of the sudden poverty which was in 2003.
The court was dealing with a case where the father of the petitioner, was working on the post of Clerk in the Irrigation and Water Resources Department. On 28.03.2003, he died while in service. State notified the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 24 days before the death of petitioner's father.
Mother of the petitioner moved an application which was approved by the department. The petitioner who was 17-year old at the time of his father's death, became eligible to apply for the compassionate appointment within 3 years from the date of death of his father.
Thereafter, the State Government notified the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 whereby choice was given to the dependents of Government employees whether they want to be covered under the Rules of 2003 or of 2006. Petitioner opted for Rules of 2003.
The petitioner filed a complaint in the CM Window in 2018 upon which an action taken report was received stating that the petitioner was not offered a job as right sizing of the jobs in the Department was done and that the petitioner was at Serial No.171 in terms of seniority for appointment. It was also mentioned that the petitioner was now covered under the Rules of 2006 and therefore, was entitled only for financial assistance.
The petitioner's mother received a letter from the office of Engineer-in-Chief to submit documents for claiming Compassionate Financial Assistance of Rs. 2.5 lakh. The petitioner was called for hearing and filed a complaint in the CM Window upon which action taken report was received stating that he cannot avail the benefit of Rules of 2003.
Considering the facts of the instant case, the court noted that the death of the petitioner's father took place in 2003 when he was only about 16-17 years. He became eligible on after almost three months and now 19 years later it cannot be said that the petitioner is suffering from sudden poverty with which they were struck in 2003.
"There is colossal delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court in the year 2022...entire delay is completely attributable to the petitioner and/ or his family members."
However, the court noted that the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to ex gratia compensation along with applicable rate of interest payable w.e.f. the date of issuance of letter whereby widow of the deceased employee was asked to attend hearing in respect of compassionate assistance of Rs.2.5 lakh, till payment.
Case Title: Sudhir Kumar versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 278
Click Here To Read/Download Order