Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the basis
of open invitation of applications and merit. No
other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at
liberty to follow any other procedure or relax
the qualifications laid down by the rules for
the post. However, to this general rule which is
to be followed strictly in every case, there are
some exceptions carved out in the interests of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of the dependants
of an employee dying in harness and leaving
his family in penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided, the family would not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is
made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The
object is not to give a member of such family a
post much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood. The Government
or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of
the deceased, and it is only if it is 6 satisfied,
that but for the provision of employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis that a
job is to be offered to the eligible member of
the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in nonmanual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered
on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution
16 OA No.1663/2021
and to help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest posts
by making an exception to the rule is
justifiable and valid since it is not
discriminatory. The favourable treatment given
to such dependant of the deceased employee
in such posts has a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved viz. relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities
for the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family
of the deceased there are millions of other
families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in
favour of the family of the deceased employee
is in consideration of the services rendered by
him and the legitimate expectations, and the
change in the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment
which are suddenly upturned."