The Patna High Court has held that compassionate appointment is intended only to provide immediate relief to the family of an employee who dies in harness, and it cannot be claimed as a vested or future right after a long lapse of time. The Court explained that even where the dependent was a minor at the time of the employee’s death, a claim raised after attaining majority, long after the death, cannot be entertained if it falls beyond the prescribed period, because that would convert compassionate appointment into a parallel mode of public employment, which is impermissible.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ritesh Kumar noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner was a minor, aged about 10 years, at the time of his father’s death, and that he applied only after attaining majority in 2015. The Bench also recorded that his application was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee but was rejected because it had been filed beyond the five-year period prescribed by the Government. It further observed that the petitioner had not assailed the decision dated October 14, 2016 by which his claim had been rejected.
The Bench then reiterated that the law on compassionate appointment is settled. Referring to Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994 (4) SCC 138], the Bench noted that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period and is not a vested right that can be exercised at any future time. Referring to Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [1996 (1) SCC 301], the Bench noted that the object of such appointment is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship, and a claim raised after attaining majority long after the death of the employee cannot be accepted as it would amount to another mode of recruitment de hors the recruitment rules.
The Bench also emphasized that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate succour and that appointments made many years after the death of the employee would be contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Also Read AI Law Firm Secures Court Victory in England in Reported First for AI-Led Legal Work
Briefly, the petitioner sought a writ directing the State authorities to appoint him on a Class-III/IV post on compassionate ground. His father, who was working as a Sweeper in Referral Hospital, Makdumpur, died in harness on May 13, 2005, leaving behind his wife and two minor sons, including the petitioner, who was about 10 years old at that time. After attaining majority in 2015, the petitioner applied on February 05, 2016 in the prescribed format, and the application was forwarded through the departmental authorities to the District Magistrate, Jahanabad. However, the Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected the claim on the ground that the application had been filed after 11 years, whereas the prescribed time limit was five years.
The petitioner argued that since he was a minor when his father died, he could not have sought compassionate appointment earlier, and that he applied only after attaining majority. He also contended that there was no other source of income for the family and that the scheme of compassionate appointment is meant for the welfare of the deceased employee’s family. The State, on the other hand, contended that the claim was rightly rejected because the application was made beyond the prescribed five-year period from the date of death of the employee.
