Ordinarily, Court Does Not Interfere In Compassionate Appointment Matters Of Contractual Employee In Absence Of Any Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 07, 2022, while dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioner to quash an order denying her request for service benefits and compassionate appointment on account of her husband's death, the court held that a decision needs to be taken as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner and her four minor children continue to live in penury. The bench Comprising Justice Arun Monga held that ordinarily, this court would not have interfered in such a matter of contractual employee in the absence of any policy but in the mitigating circumstances of this case, it is expected from the State to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner on any suitable post in any class subject to the requirement of services. Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in the matter of compassionate appointments in the absence of any policy qua the contractual employee, which concededly the husband of the petitioner was at the time of his death. However, given the mitigating circumstances, as more particularly stated in the petition and also the fact that deceased husband of the petitioner had served the respondents for nine years, leaving behind young 33 years widow with four minor children to feed, it is expected of the respondents to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner, subject of course to the requirement of services, on any suitable post in any class, on a similar arrangement of contract like her husband. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was working with the respondent department on a contract basis, and he died in harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner-wife claims that the service benefits have not been granted nor has her request for the compassionate appointment is being considered. Learned counsel of the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Mamtesh v. State of Haryana and others 2019(4) SCT 116, wherein it was held that even in the case of a temporary employee working for the State, the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds can be extended. After considering the submissions of the counsel for petitioners, the court held that ordinarily, this court would not have interfered in such a matter. However, in the mitigating circumstances and the facts of the instant case, it is expected from the State to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner on any suitable post in any class subject to the requirement of services. Court further concluded that considering the situation of the petitioner and her four minor children who continue to live in penury caused by the sudden financial hardship due to the accidental death of her husband, a decision needs to be taken as expeditiously as possible.Case Title : Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and AnotherCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78Click Here To Read/Download Order

Ordinarily, Court Does Not Interfere In Compassionate Appointment Matters Of Contractual Employee In Absence Of Any Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Drishti Yadav

Ordinarily, Court Does Not Interfere In Compassionate Appointment Matters Of Contractual Employee In Absence Of Any Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers