Read Order- Om Pati and another v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others  

LE Satff

Chandigarh, September 30, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased Government employee to tide over sudden crises faced by it due to untimely demise of the breadwinner of the family.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh was considering an appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the prayer of the appellants for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to offer appointment to second appellant(son of deceased employee) under ex-gratia scheme or any other direction was declined.

The case pertains to the fact that the fact that the deceased, Ram Kumar, who was working as ALM in DHBVNL, died on June 29,2001 while in harness. First appellant is his widow while  second appellant is his son. The widow received ex-gratia compassionate assistance of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the authorities and by that time, the second appellant had already attained the age of majority.

After 12 years of the receipt of ex-gratia, the first appellant served legal notice seeking compassionate appointment for her son and offered to surrender the aforesaid ex-gratia. The authorities gave reply to the said legal notice, as per which the first appellant herself gave option to avail the benefit of lumpsum financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lakhs in lieu of employment to her son on compassionate ground and she accepted the said financial assistance without any objection.

The Division Bench referred to the judgment of the full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein it was held that the policy which is prevailing at the time, when the deceased employee died, only is required to be considered by the authorities. 

Another judgment referred to was of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Amit Shrivas, wherein it was opined that it is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. 

“Furthermore it is well settled law that whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased Government employee to tide over sudden crises faced by it due to untimely demise of the breadwinner of the family. At the same time, it is also manifestly clear that such type of employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the members of the family of the deceased Government employee”,added the Bench.

Without finding any reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge , the Bench held that the second appellant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground, as a matter of right more so after 15 years of his attaining the age of employment. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment