Deepak Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate For the Petitioner : For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.C. to SC (L&C) III ---- 06/ 27.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

On the admitted facts, this case can be disposed of since the counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents.

Mother of the petitioner was an employee under the State, working as ‘Anusevika’ in Swarnrekha Canal Division, Jamshedpur. She died in harness on 03.11.1996. Admittedly, the petitioner was a minor at that point of time aged about 7-8 years. In 2010, on attaining majority, petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. His application was rejected on the ground that the same has been filed after a long delay of 14 years from the date of death of the employee.

I find no illegality in the impugned order. Admittedly, the death had taken place in 1996. Petitioner was a minor. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to the family due to the sudden demise of the bread winner. The object of these types of appointment is not to give a member of such family a post. Compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 at paragraph 12 thereof as under:- “12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help -: 2 :- available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service.

In this case, the petitioner has survived for 26 years after the death of the employee, thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment is now frustrated. Further, petitioner was 7-8 years at the time of death of the employee. It is well settled that no post can be kept reserved for a minor for grant of compassionate ground awaiting for his majority. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Kumar/S.K/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)