1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2011 by which the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by the respondents.
2. The father of the petitioner was serving as Armed Police Constable in the Office of respondent no.3 and died in harness on 19.08.2004. On 29.09.2004 the petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the said application was not responded, the petitioner made another application dated 02.02.2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the application for compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected on 30.01.2006 by respondent no.3. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the higher authority. However, since no decision was taken on his representation, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.4076/2011 which came to disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation within stipulated period. Since the respondents did not complied with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 2135/2011 before this Court. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 12.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition has been preferred.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner has died on 19.08.2004 and the present petition has been preferred in the year 2012. Admittedly, there is a long delay in applying for appointment under the scheme.
4. In the appointment on compassionate ground there should not be any delay in such appointment. In the case of Local Administration Department & Anr. v. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu (2011) 13 SCC 42, the Apex Court has held that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. In the present case, the petitioner is not able to point out any provision in the scheme which enables the petitioner to apply for appointment on compassionate ground after a long delay. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner in view of the long delay in making application.
5. In the case of State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 and more particularly, on the observations made in Paras – 8 & 9, which reads as under;
“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules of by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.
9. Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply.”
6. In the case of Union of India and Another v. B. Kishore, (2011) 13 SCC 131, the Apex Court has held that indigence of dependants of deceased employee is first precondition to bring case under the scheme of compassionate appointment and that absence of indigence would turn compassionate appointment reservation in favour of dependents of employee who died while in service, which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Arts. 14 & 16 of Constitution.
7. Thus, the object of the Scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family and therefore, the consideration of the case of petitioner, after a period of almost thirteen years, would frustrate the very purpose of the Scheme since the family of the petitioner had survived for all these years.
8. Considering the facts of the case and the principle rendered by the Apex Court in State Bank of India, B. Kishore and M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu's cases (supra), I do not find any reasons to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/