Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a regular one, years after the death of the employee since it is meant to help the family of the deceased to overcome immediate penury.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra rejected a plea by Aditya Yuvraj Gond against the Patna High Court's judgement of April 16, 2019.

The petitioner’s father died in harness on December 31, 2001 while serving as a Section Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department.

The case is related to a claim for compassionate appointment for the son of the deceased employee.

The High Court by its judgment held that a claim for compassionate appointment should not be permitted to be legally enforced, 17 years after the death of the employee.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the bench said, "It is well settled that claim for compassionate appointment is not to be considered as a regular mode of appointment and it is intended to address the penurious situation in the immediate aftermath of the death of the bread earner of the family."

The bench pointed out the concerned employee died 23 years back.

"In these circumstances, we are disinclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed," the bench said.

Before the High Court, the Bihar government had contended the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee had found the claim has come up after 11 years of the death of the employee whereas it could have been set up only within 5 years of the death of the employee as per the Rules. 

The petitioner has submitted since he was minor at the time of death of his father, he could make the claim.

The High Court also noted the fact remains that the claim of compassionate appointment by the mother was not pursued and when the department called upon the mother to submit her documents, she, instead of submitting her documents, set up the claim for the appellant requesting the department to consider compassionate appointment of the appellant as he was eligible for such consideration.