Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 174 of 2024 Vikash Kumar Gupta, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Kamal Kumar Gupta, R/o-Shibala Road, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand ... ... ... Appellant 1. 2. Versus The State of Jharkhand. The Secretary, The Personnel Department, Ranchi, At P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, The Social Welfare Department, Ranchi, At P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At P.O. and P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 5. The District Establishment Department, Palamau, At P.O. and P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 6. The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau, At P.O. and P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Patan At P.O. and P.S.- Patan, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ... ... ... Respondents For the Appellant: For the State: --------- Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II --------- Order No. 04 /Dated: 14th June 2024 The appellant is aggrieved of the decision of the writ Court dated 30th October 2023 passed in W.P(S) No.3364 of 2020 wherein it was held that the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment by the respondents-authority does not require interference by the Court. 2. The writ Court referred to “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana” (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “2.….. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family…” 3. This is well settled that an application for compassionate appointment should be dealt with as per the scheme formulated by the employer for such an appointment. The father of the appellant had died on 21st January 1997 and, at that time, the appellant was a minor. The mother of the appellant was offered compassionate appointment but she declined the offer and expressed her desire for appointment on compassionate ground to her brother-in-law which was approved by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, Palamu but appointment letter was not issued in his favour. On attaining the age of majority, the appellant moved a representation for compassionate appointment on 5th September 2012 which has been declined by the respondents-authority. The appellant has not demonstrated from the scheme for compassionate appointment that about 15 years after the death of his father he could have moved an application for compassionate appointment. The scheme for compassionate appointment is formulated by the State to provide immediate relief to the family in distress. Now more than quarter a century has passed since the father of the appellant had died. 2 L.P.A. No. 174 of 2024 Quite evidently, the family has weathered the adverse situation which it had to face on account of death of the bread earner and now no direction for appointment on compassionate ground can be issued. In this regard, we may also refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299, which read as under: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 4. We, therefore, declined to interfere with the writ Court’s decision dated 30th October 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3364 of 2020. Accordingly, L.P.A. No. 174 of 2024 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) VK (Navneet Kumar, J.) 3 L.P.A. No. 174 of 2024