Gujarat High Court
Ratanben Devrajbhai Gopani vs State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 2022
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9650 of 2011
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 552 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1966 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI : Sd/-
=======================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any NO
order made thereunder ?
=======================================================
RATANBEN DEVRAJBHAI GOPANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 19/04/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the concerned Page 1 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2. As the issue involved in all these petitions are similar, all these petitioners are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However for the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in Special Civil Application No.522/2012 are considered. However, the facts of each case leading to filing of the petition are as under,
3. Facts of Special Civil Application No.522/2012:-
The father of the petitioner was serving as Driver in the office of the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary, Bhuj-Kutch, however while in service, he died on 03.10.2007 and, hence, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.03.2008 for compassionate appointment, however by communication dated 30.12.2010, the respondent no.2 rejected his application relying upon the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and Government Circular dated 29.03.2007.
4. Facts of Special Civil Application No.9650/2011:-
The husband of the petitioner was working as Music Teacher under the District Panchayat, Page 2 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 Bhavnagar and while in service, he died on 21.04.2005 and, hence, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.05.2005 for compassionate appointment, however by an order dated 13.03.2008, the respondent no.1 rejected her application relying upon the Government Circular dated 29.03.2007. Therefore, a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14336/2009 was filed before this Court, wherein while disposing of said writ petition, direction was issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the policy prevailing on the date of application, however once again by an order dated 04.09.2009, the respondent no.1 rejected her application on the ground of income relying upon Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000.
5. Facts of Special Civil Application No.1966/2012:-
The father of the petitioner was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri with the respondent no.2 and while in service, he died on 08.12.2006 and, hence, the petitioner submitted an application dated 18.05.2007 for compassionate appointment, however by an order dated 14.11.2008, the Page 3 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent authority relying upon the Government Circular dated 29.07.2007 and the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. The petitioner has also requested the authority to consider his case for compassionate appointment by letter dated 02.02.2009, however, the said request was also rejected by the authority.
6. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Samir B. Gohil for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent no.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent no.2.
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Driver in the office of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary, Bhuj-Kutch, died on 03.10.2007 while he was in service and after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.03.2008 and requested the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the concerned respondent authority rejected the application submitted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the family of Page 4 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 the deceased is getting Rs.5056/- as family pension and total amount of Rs.4,01,859/- has been given to the family members of the deceased. It is submitted that while rejecting the said application, the concerned respondent authority has placed reliance upon the object of Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 as well as Clause 2(8) of Circular dated 29.03.2007 issued by the State Government. Learned advocate has referred to the policy framed by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and, thereafter, contended that the respondent authority has committed an error while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner relying upon Clause No.2(8) of the Circular dated 29.03.2007. It is submitted that in Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, there is no income criteria, which is to be considered by the authority while granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner - legal heirs of the deceased employee. It is further submitted that the petitioner made representation to the respondent authority on 14.03.2011 and requested to reconsider the decision, however, the respondent Page 5 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 authority has rejected the said request/ representation and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
8. Learned advocate has mainly contended that in similar type of matter, this Court has passed an order on 11.01.2008 in Special Civil Application No.16826/2007. It is submitted that in the said case also, the application submitted by the concerned petitioner was rejected mainly on the aspect of income and this Court has observed in Paragraph No.7 of the said decision that in Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, it has been provided that the retiral benefits are not to be considered or there is no income limit to be considered for consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that against the said order, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.529/2008 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal and, therefore, the State Government preferred Special Leave Petition NO.3704/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 02.04.2009 and thereby Page 6 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. At this stage, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Tushar Jagdishchandra Vyas Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2018 (4) GLR 3007. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon Paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the said decision. It is submitted that this Court has specifically held that the terminal benefits received by the petitioner employee after the demise of his mother cannot be considered in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that against the aforesaid decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.691/2019 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench has dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 18.03.2019.
10. Learned advocate has, thereafter, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance Page 7 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 upon Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the said decision. Learned advocate submitted that as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the policy prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
11. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the respondent authority has committed an error while rejecting the application of the petitioner by placing reliance upon Clause 2(8) of the Circular dated 29.03.2000. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents by directing them to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
12. On the other hand, learned AGP has mainly contended that the petitioner submitted application on 14.03.2008 for the compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondent authority on 30.12.2010 on the ground that the position of the family of the deceased employee does found not pitiable as the family of the petitioner is receiving Rs.5,056/- p.m. family pension and also received Rs.4,10,859/- as Page 8 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 terminal benefits. Learned advocate, thereafter, submitted that in Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 in Clause 5(A), it is provided that to bring the family out of financial crisis upon the demise of the deceased employee, the appointment can be offered to the dependent who satisfies the requisite condition for getting the compassionate appointment. Learned AGP, thereafter, submitted that the State Government has also issued Circular dated 29.03.2007. Learned AGP has referred to Clause 2(8) of the said Circular, wherein it is provided that while considering the application filed for the grant of compassionate appointment, the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is also required to be considered, which includes the family pension, gratuity, insurance, GPF, movable and immovable property of the deceased employee.
13. Learned AGP submitted that after considering the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and the Circular dated 29.03.2007, the respondent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner and, therefore, no error is committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the Page 9 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 claim of the petitioner. At this stage, learned AGP further pointed out from the record that the petitioner is placing reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, copy of which is placedon record at Page No.9 of the compilation. Learned AGP has referred to Clause - 8 of the said resolution, wherein it is specifically provided that the application for compassionate appointment is to be made within a period of three months from the date of death of the employee, however in the facts of the present case, admittedly the application has been submitted by the petitioner after a period of three months and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of the aforesaid resolution, upon which, he is placing reliance.
14. Learned AGP has placed reliance upon following decisions, "(1) the judgment in case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571;
(2) the judgment in case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617;
(3) the judgment in case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported Page 10 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 in (2012) 11 SCC 307."
15. After referring to relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision, it is contended that when the respondent authority has considered the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and rejected the claim, no error is committed by the respondents and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
16. Learned advocate, Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondent no.2 has also opposed these petitions and supported the submissions canvassed by learned AGP.
17. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that the father of the petitioner was serving as Driver with Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary, Bhuj-Kutch and while in service, he died on 03.10.2007. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted application on 14.03.2008 i.e. after a period of three months and requested the respondent authority to appoint him on compassionate ground relying upon the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. It is pertinent to note at this stage Page 11 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 that as per Clause - 8 of the said resolution, upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner, the application for compassionate appointment is required to be submitted within a period of three months from the date of death of the employee. In the present case, the said application is filed after a period of more than five months. It is further revealed from the record that the respondent authority has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the family of the deceased employee is getting family pension of Rs.5056/- p.m. and amount of Rs.4,01,859/- has been given towards terminal benefits. It is pertinent to note that by way of Circular dated 29.03.2007, the State Government made certain clarifications in Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, the policy framed by the State Government in the year 2000 was required to be considered by the respondent authority and not the policy dated 29.03.2007. However, the said submission is misconceived. It is not in dispute Page 12 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 that father of the petitioner died on 03.10.2007 i.e. after the Circular dated 29.03.2007 was issued by the State Government. If Clause - 2(8) of the said Circular is carefully seen, it is specifically stated that income criteria of the deceased family is required to be kept in mind while considering the application and for the said purpose, the family pension, gratuity, insurance, GPF etc. is also required to be considered while considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, however by placing reliance upon the said resolution, which was in existence at the time of consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authority has rejected application submitted by the petitioner.
18. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the decision upon which reliance is placed by learned advocate for the petitioner. In the order dated 11.01.2008 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.16826/2007, this Court has not considered the Circular, which was issued on 29.03.2007 by the State Government. Thus while considering the provision contained in Government Page 13 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 Resolution dated 10.03.2000, certain observations were made by this Court and, therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
19. In the decision in case of Tushar Jagdishchandra Vyas (supra), this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.16 and 17 as under, "(16.)Thus by both the orders, the sole ground on which the case of petitioner is rejected, is that his family has received the terminal benefits which comprise of pension, GPF amount, leave encashment, group insurance and post insurance. The Apex Court in the case of M.Maheshkumar (supra) after considering various judgments on the issue including the B.Kihsore(supra) and Rajkumar(supra), relied upon by the learned AGP, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. V. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded Page 14 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:-
17."13. ....But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation."
18.Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd. s case, High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground."Page 15 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022
C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 (17.)Thus, the terminal benefits received by the petitioner after the demise of his mother cannot be considered in view of the afore- noted observations made by the Apex Court."
20. In the said case also, the concerned petitioner got service benefits and the family pension and, therefore, while relying upon the Circular dated 29.03.2007, the application of the concerned petitioner was rejected on the ground that the family of the petitioner cannot be considered as harnesh or petiable economic condition and while relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has observed that the terminal benfits received by the concerned petitioner after demise of his mother cannot be considered. However, it is pertinent to note that while deciding the said petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has not considered the decision rendered by by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra).
21. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571, more Page 16 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 particularly, Paragraph Nos.20 to 23 and 25 of the said order, which read as under,
20. The law with regard to employment on compassionate grounds for dependents of a deceased employee was laid down by this Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), where this Court observed that, "Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood".
21. This Court has further observed in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. (supra), that, "The particulars of their income have been noted in their application and it certainly could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division Bench erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of "not very well to do".
22. It was again observed in 2005 by this Court in the case of SBI vs Vikas Dubey, (Civil Appeal No.7003/05 dated 21.11.2005), also followed the decision in Kunti Tiwary Page 17 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 (supra) case.
23. Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the respondents family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs.4,57,607/- as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs.19,183/- towards liabilities); a sum of Rs.2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs.5855/- (monthly pension of Rs.2055/- + Rs.3800/- p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs.4,57,607/-). The competent fact finding authority on the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.
24. xxx xxx xxx.
Page 18 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
25. Also we are of the view that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Both the Benches of the High Court that heard this present matter have erred in entertaining the claim of the respondent and allowing the claim of the respondent. This was the view taken in a recent decision of this Court in Union Bank of India and Others vs. M.T. Latheesh (supra), where the court observed that, "Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities.
The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment"."
22. From the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that while appointing the dependent on compassionate ground, the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee should be considered. It is also observed that unless the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is Page 19 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 penurious, such appointments cannot be made. In the said case also, the concerned employer paid Rs.4,57,607/- as terminal benefits and sum of Rs.2055/- p.m. was being paid towards the family pension and, therefore, the competent authority on the basis of the said financial condition of the deceased employee had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves and, therefore, the appointment on the compassionate ground was denied. In the present case also, relying upon Clause - 8 of Circular dated 29.03.2007 and after considering the financial condition of the deceased employee, the respondent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner and, therefore, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the respondent authority.
23. In case of Ashish Awasthi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as under
"4. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the Page 20 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3- 12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy."
24. This Court cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. In the present case, the respondent has considered the prevalent policy at the time of death of the deceased employee and the Page 21 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 clarification made from time to time i.e. prior to death of the father of the petitioner.
25. In case of N.C. Santhosh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 as under, "18. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State's policy.
19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the Page 22 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee."
26. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment. In the present case also, the respondent authority has considered the prevalent policy and, thereafter, rejected the application submitted by the petitioner.
27. In the judgment in case of Shashank Goswami (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as under, "9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in Page 23 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased."
28. From the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant - petitioner was dependent upon the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld Page 24 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State/ Institute and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. It is further clear from the decision that the appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with law, rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee.
29. Keeping in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, are carefully examined, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged the Page 25 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 Circular dated 29.03.2007 in the present petition by contending that the State Government is not empowered to issue such instructions by way of aforesaid Circular. Thus this Court has not examined the validity of the said Circular dated 29.03.2007 issued by the State Government.
30. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that claim for compassionate appointment has a purpose of giving immediate help to the family who has suffered crisis due to death of bread-earner in the family. The claim of compassionate appointment has to be put forth and the benefit has to be conferred within reasonable time. Once the long time passed-by, the compassionate element stands extinguished. A family who could survive for long years would not be entitled to any compassionate benefit since compassionate benefit is not a largesse nor it is a rule in the employment. The very policy of giving compassionate appointment has the object of providing immediate relief to the family. It is well settled that the request of such nature would not be entertained after span of long years. In the present case, indisputably, there is delay in submitting the application for Page 26 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 appointment on compassionate ground and relying upon the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and Government Circular dated 29.03.2007, the said application for compassionate appointment has rightly be rejected by the respondent in the year 2008. These petitions are pending since 2011-12. Thus, the purpose to grant immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee by appointing on compassionate ground could not be entertained, even otherwise, at this stage after a period of 16 years after the death of an employee.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, all these petition are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam Page 27 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022