Jitendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents --- : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Ac to SC (L&C)-II --- 06/29th January 2025

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has challenged the part of order dated 04.12.2023, whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, has been rejected.

It is an admitted case that the petitioner is a son of the deceased employee namely Khemlal Paswan who was a Chowkidar in the district of Latehar and died in harness on 09.12.2013. On his death, the petitioner being the son, has filed an application on 14.09.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in which the constitutional provisions of equality and equal opportunity, are not followed. The entire concept of compassionate appointment is based on scheme or policy of the State. When there is a deviation from the constitutional mandate in respect of appointment by way of compassionate appointment, the provisions in scheme has to be followed strictly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad 5. Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 at para 15 has held as under:-

Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden 1 invitation of applications and comparative merit, financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

It is admitted case that the State of Jharkhand has a policy in respect of grant of compassionate appointment. The State Policy has been brought on record in the counter affidavit dated 01.12.2015. As per the State Policy, in Clause – 10, it has been specified that an application for grant of compassionate appointment must be filed within five years from the date of the death of an employee. In this case, admittedly the application was filed after more than seven years.

Further at the time of death of the father of this petitioner, the petitioner was minor as his date of birth is 01.01.2005. It is also evident that even on the date of application also he was minor.

Since there is a scheme which prescribes limitation period for filing an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the scheme is still in force and has not been declared ultra vires, this Court cannot pass any order in deviation with the provisions of the scheme. The provision of the scheme of compassionate appointment has to be strictly followed without any deviation. Since the petitioner has applied beyond the time frame mentioned in the scheme, I find that the order of rejection and the grounds mentioned therein, is in accordance with the scheme. There is no illegality in the same. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Aditi (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2