Object Of Compassionate Appointment Is To Provide Livelihood To Family, No Discretion With Authorities To Appoint Dehors Scheme Of Operation: Patna HC
The Patna High Court has observed that a claim of compassionate appointment is not a vested right and according to the scheme, it is founded on considering immediacy upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family, therefore, their is no discretion with the authorities to make such appointments dehors the scheme of operation.
The Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh observed, “A claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and according to the scheme/policy, it is founded on considering immediacy upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family must be established that the dependents of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of livelihood was provided a family would not be able to make both ends meet. Compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable from the scheme and no discretion is left with the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme of operation. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.”
Advocate Deepak Kumar Sinha appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Krishna Kant Singh appeared for the Respondents.
The father of the petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Respondents herein, and while he was in service, he died in harness but no information was given with respect to the “date of death” of the father of the petitioner.
The case of the Petitioner for grant of continuity of service was pending with the Respondents-authorities, the Court, previously passed an order granting liberty to the Respondents to consider the same and take appropriate decisions as early as possible. In compliance with the order, the claim of the petitioner for continuity in service was rejected because his initial appointment was made by an incompetent authority. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for continuity in service and payment of the difference in salary was considered by the competent authority.
The Court said that the case of the Petitioner was covered by the judgments of the Apex Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Umadevi Ors. (2006) and The Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors (2007).
The Court noted, “Therefore, merely on the ground that the appointment was made by an incompetent authority and allowing the petitioner to continue in service on the applicable pay sale and having denied from payment of arrear of the salary and other consequential relief(s) from the initial date of appointment i.e. 06.07.1996 can not be sustained…The case of the petitioner can be considered to be under the category of irregular appointment. The petitioner can not be allowed to suffer for the fault of the Chief Engineer. The Authority concerned instead of having proceeding against the Chief Engineer, who had issued the appointment letter. The respondent having once accepted and having acted on the basis of the recommendation of District Compassionate Appointment Committee now can not turn around and put the petitioner to face penal consequences.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondent-authorities of the Water Resources Department to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and take an appropriate decision well within six months.
Cause Title: Amrendra Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Deepak Kumar Sinha
Respondents: Advocate Krishna Kant Singh