# Km. Sandhya v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 58
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-01-19
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-sandhya-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42235
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate Appointment can not be
claimed
as
alternative
mode
of
appointment-petitioner's father-died in
harness on 08.12.2004-his mother was
offered appointment on class 4th post on
29.09.2006-on refusal putting claim for
appointment on class III post-accepted
on 31.07.2007-again moved application
on 10.08.2009 claiming appointment of
the petitioner as became major-purpose
of compassionate appointment to give
immediate relief to meet out the family
from distress-in case can manage to
surprise for these considerable periodswithout accepting appointment-can not
1 All] Km. Sandhya V. State of U.P. and others
59
be an alternate appointment-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 20

It
is
thus
clear
that
rule
of
compassionate
appointment
has
an
object to give relief against destitution.
It is not a provision to provide alternate
employment
or
an
appointment
commensurate with the post held by the
deceased employee. It is not by way of
giving
similarly
placed
life
to
the
dependents
of
the
deceased.
While
considering the provision pertaining to
relaxation under 1974 Rules, the very
object of compassionate appointment
cannot be ignored.
Case law discussed:
1997 (11) SCC 390; 1999 (I) LLJ 539; AIR
1998 SC 2230; AIR 2000 SC 2782; AIR 2004
SC 4155; 1995 (6) SCC 436; (1996) 8 SCC 23;
AIR 1998 SC 2612; JT 2002 (3) SC 485=2002
(10) SCC 246; AIR 2005 SC 106; AIR 2006 SC
2743; (2009) 13 SCC 122=JT 2009 (6) SC
624; 2009 (6) SCC 481; 2007 (6) SCC 162;
2011 (4) SCALE 308; 2011 (3) ADJ 91; Nagesh
Chandra Vs. Chief Engineer, Vivasthan Ga
Warg & Ors. decided on 7th January, 2011 in
Special Appeal No.36 of 2011

## Text

58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
channels falling under the urban areas of
district Gorakhpur.

5. The petitioner has not been able
to explain as to why he has filed this
broad based PIL petition and why the
persons, who are sought to be evicted
from the said lands by declaring them to
be ponds, have not themselves challenged
their eviction.

6. In the case of State of Utranchal
Vs. Balwant Singh chaufal and others,
(2010)3 SCC 402, it has been held that
PIL can be filed in representative capacity
only if the person concerned is unable to
approach the Courts. No averment has
been made that the persons who are being
sought to be evicted are unable to
approach the Courts.

7. Further, we do not understand as
to what public cause would be advanced
if the ratio of Hinch Lal Tiwari's case
which sought to improve the ecological
balance by ensuring that ponds etc. which
are inlet for rain water and which
facilitate re-charge of water may be
cleared off obstructions, which have been
created on it. If the vigour of the said
judgement is reduced, we can only except
more ecological damage and a falling
water table which is becoming a common
phenomena both in rural and urban areas.

8. The petitioner has also referred to
a judgement of learned Single Judge of
this Court in Rishab Dev Jain Vs. State
of UP and others, (Writ B No. 57243 of
2011) decided on 20.10.2011 where in an
individual petition filed by the aggrieved
person, the learned Single Judge after
observing that in the case before him
several judicial interventions had taken
place declaring the rights of the petitioner
therein and hence on the strength of
Hinch Lal (Supra) case he could not be
evicted therefrom without following the
procedure of law.

9. The present petition, it may be
noted, is not an individual petition filed
by the aggrieved persons.

10. In view of what has been
indicated herein above, we find no merit
in this case. It is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 3670 of 2012

Km. Sandhya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate Appointment can not be
claimed
as
alternative
mode
of
appointment-petitioner's father-died in
harness on 08.12.2004-his mother was
offered appointment on class 4th post on
29.09.2006-on refusal putting claim for
appointment on class III post-accepted
on 31.07.2007-again moved application
on 10.08.2009 claiming appointment of
the petitioner as became major-purpose
of compassionate appointment to give
immediate relief to meet out the family
from distress-in case can manage to
surprise for these considerable periodswithout accepting appointment-can not
1 All] Km. Sandhya V. State of U.P. and others
59
be an alternate appointment-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 20

It
is
thus
clear
that
rule
of
compassionate
appointment
has
an
object to give relief against destitution.
It is not a provision to provide alternate
employment
or
an
appointment
commensurate with the post held by the
deceased employee. It is not by way of
giving
similarly
placed
life
to
the
dependents
of
the
deceased.
While
considering the provision pertaining to
relaxation under 1974 Rules, the very
object of compassionate appointment
cannot be ignored.
Case law discussed:
1997 (11) SCC 390; 1999 (I) LLJ 539; AIR
1998 SC 2230; AIR 2000 SC 2782; AIR 2004
SC 4155; 1995 (6) SCC 436; (1996) 8 SCC 23;
AIR 1998 SC 2612; JT 2002 (3) SC 485=2002
(10) SCC 246; AIR 2005 SC 106; AIR 2006 SC
2743; (2009) 13 SCC 122=JT 2009 (6) SC
624; 2009 (6) SCC 481; 2007 (6) SCC 162;
2011 (4) SCALE 308; 2011 (3) ADJ 91; Nagesh
Chandra Vs. Chief Engineer, Vivasthan Ga
Warg & Ors. decided on 7th January, 2011 in
Special Appeal No.36 of 2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. The petitioner has sought a
mandamus commanding the respondent to
provide compassionate appointment.

2. It is admitted that petitioner's
father, working as Assistant Teacher in Sri
Shivdan Singh Inter College, Aligarh, died
on
8.12.2004
whereafter
petitioner's
mother
applied
for
compassionate
appointment on the post of Assistant Clerk
in the College. Considering the availability
of vacancy and qualification etc. of
petitioner's mother, District Inspector of
Schools, Aligarh issued an order dated
26.9.2006 appointing petitioner's mother as
a Class IV employee but she did not join
and continued to insist upon offering
appointment on the post of Assistant Clerk.
Subsequently, letter dated 13.8.2007 was
issued by District Inspector of Schools for
absorbing/appointing/accommodating the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk
w.e.f. 31.7.2007 in the above College but
she did not take any interest in joining the
post thereat by taking appropriate steps. On
the contrary, on 10.8.2009, petitioner's
mother sent a letter to the Management of
the
College
that
due
to
family
circumstances she is not able to join the
service and since her daughter i.e.
petitioner has now attained majority and
this is being informed to the Management.
Thereafter petitioner made an application
for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted
that
since
no
letter
of
appointment was issued to the petitioner's
mother, she did not join. In fact she was
not allowed to join and there is no fault on
her part and hence now she is entitled for
compassionate appointment.

4. From the record it is admitted that
considering sudden hardship suffered by
petitioner's family, if any, due to the death
of her father, a letter was issued to
petitioner's
mother
on
26.9.2006
appointing her as a Class IV employee but
she did not join and insisted for
appointment on a higher status post. A
compassionate appointment is not meant
for conferring status but to provide succour
to the bereaved family which has suffered
loss due to sudden demise of sole bread
earner. Once appointment letter was issued
and the legal heir of the deceased
employee accept or failed to accept the
same, he/she cannot be allowed to claim an
appointment subsequently on a higher post.
This would be against the very objective of
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the scheme of compassionate appointment.
Moreover, petitioner's mother did not find
any financial scarcity compelling to join
service in 2006 when letter of appointment
was issued, in my view, at this belated
stage
claim
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate appointment cannot be
accepted.

5. In Managing Director, MMTC
Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pramoda
Dei Alias Nayak 1997 (11) SCC 390 the
Court said:

"As pointed out by this Court, the
object of compassionate appointment is to
enable the penurious family of the
deceased employee to tied over the sudden
financial crises and not to provide
employment and that mere death of an
employee does not entitle his family to
compassionate appointment."

6. In S. Mohan Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ 539
the Supreme Court said:

"The object being to enable the family
to get over the financial crisis which it
faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner,
the
compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered
whatever the lapse of time and after the
crisis is over."

7. In Director of Education
(Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra
Kumar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2230 the
Court said:

"The object underlying a provision for
grant of compassionate employment is to
enable the family of the deceased employee
to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due
to death of the bread earner which has left
the family in penury and without any
means of livelihood."

8. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2782 it
was held:

"compassionate
appointment
is
intended to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over sudden
crisis resulting due to death of the bread
earner who had left the family in penury
and without any means of livelihood"

9. In Punjab Nation Bank & Ors.
Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja AIR 2004
SC 4155, the court said:

"It is to be seen that the appointment
on compassionate ground is not a source
of recruitment but merely an exception to
the requirement regarding appointments
being
made
on
open
invitation
of
application on merits. Basic intention is
that on the death of the employee
concerned his family is not deprived of the
means of livelihood. The object is to enable
the family to get over sudden financial
crisis."

10 An appointment on compassionate
basis claimed after a long time has
seriously been deprecated by Apex Court
in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6)
SCC 436, Haryana State Electricity
Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8
SCC 23. In the later case the Court said:

"compassionate appointment cannot
be granted after a long lapse of reasonable
period
and
the
very
purpose
of
compassionate
appointment,
as
an
exception to the general rule of open
recruitment, is intended to meet the
immediate
financial
problem
being
1 All] Km. Sandhya V. State of U.P. and others
61
suffered by the members of the family of
the deceased employee. ..... the very object
of appointment of dependent of deceasedemployee who died in harness is to relieve
immediate hardship and distress caused to
the family by sudden demise of the earning
member
of
the
family
and
such
consideration cannot be kept binding for
years."

11. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.
Paras Nath AIR 1998 SC 2612, the Court
said:

"The
purpose
of
providing
employment
to
a
dependent
of
a
government servant dying in harness in
preference to anybody else, is to mitigate
the hardship caused to the family of the
employee on account of his unexpected
death while still in service. To alleviate the
distress of the family, such appointments
are permissible on compassionate grounds
provided there are Rules providing for
such appointment. The purpose is to
provide immediate financial assistance to
the family of a deceased government
servant. None of these considerations can
operate when the application is made after
a long period of time such as seventeen
years in the present case."

12. In Hariyana State Electricity
Board Vs. Krishna Devi JT 2002 (3) SC
485 = 2002 (10) SCC 246 the Court said:

"As the application for employment of
her son on compassionate ground was
made by the respondent after eight years of
death of her husband, we are of the
opinion that it was not to meet the
immediate financial need of the family ...."

13. In National Hydroelectric
Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak
Chand & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 106, the
Court said:

"It is to be seen that the appointment
on compassionate ground is not a source
of recruitment but merely an exception to
the requirement regarding appointments
being
made
on
open
invitation
of
application on merits. Basic intention is
that on the death of the employee
concerned his family is not deprived of the
means of livelihood. The object is to enable
the family to get over sudden financial
crises."

14. In State of Jammu & Kashmir
Vs. Sajad Ahmed AIR 2006 SC 2743 the
Court said:

"Normally,
an
employment
in
Government or other public sectors should
be open to all eligible candidates who can
come forward to apply and compete with
each other. It is in consonance with Article
14 of the Constitution. On the basis of
competitive merits, an appointment should
be made to public office. This general rule
should not be departed except where
compelling circumstances demand, such
as, death of sole bread earner and
likelihood of the family suffering because
of the set back. Once it is proved that in
spite of death of bread earner, the family
survived and substantial period is over,
there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to
normal rule of appointment and to show
favour to one at the cost of interests of
several others ignoring the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution."

15.

Following
several
earlier
authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and others,
(2009) 13 SCC 122 = JT 2009 (6) SC 624
the Court said:
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

"The
principles
indicated
above
would give a clear indication that the
compassionate appointment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in
future. The compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered after a
lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

16. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481
the Apex Court had the occasion to
consider Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as "1974 Rules") and said:

"The very concept of giving a
compassionate appointment is to tide over
the financial difficulties that is faced by the
family of the deceased due to the death of
the earning member of the family. There is
immediate loss of earning for which the
family suffers financial hardship. The
benefit is given so that the family can tide
over such financial constraints. The
request for appointment on compassionate
grounds
should
be
reasonable
and
proximate to the time of the death of the
bread earner of the family, inasmuch as
the very purpose of giving such benefit is
to make financial help available to the
family to overcome sudden economic crisis
occurring in the family of the deceased
who has died in harness. But this, however,
cannot be another source of recruitment.
This also cannot be treated as a bonanza
and also as a right to get an appointment
in Government service."

17. The Court considered that father
of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey
became untraceable in 1981 and for about
18 years the family could survive and
successfully faced and over came the
financial
difficulties.
In
these
circumstances it further held:

"That being the position, in our
considered opinion, this is not a fit case for
exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not
a case where any direction could be issued
for giving the appellant a compassionate
appointment
as
the
prevalent
rules
governing the subject do not permit us for
issuing any such directions."

18. In I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC
162 the Court said:

"Public employment is considered to
be a wealth. It in terms of the
constitutional scheme cannot be given on
descent. When such an exception has been
carved out by this Court, the same must be
strictly complied with. Appointment on
compassionate ground is given only for
meeting the immediate hardship which is
faced by the family by reason of the death
of the bread earner. When an appointment
is made on compassionate ground, it
should be kept confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being
not to provide for endless compassion."

19. The importance of penury and
indigence of the family of the deceased
employee and need to provide immediate
assistance for compassionate appointment
has been considered by the Apex Court in
Union of India (UOI) & Anr. Vs. B.
Kishore 2011(4) SCALE 308. This is
relevant to make the provisions for
compassionate appointment valid and
constitutional else the same would be
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The Court said:
1 All] Madan V. State of U.P. and others
63

"If the element of indigence and the
need to provide immediate assistance for
relief from financial deprivation is taken
out from the scheme of compassionate
appointments, it would turn out to be
reservation in favour of the dependents of
an employee who died while in service
which would be directly in conflict with
the ideal of equality guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

20. It is thus clear that rule of
compassionate appointment has an object
to give relief against destitution. It is not a
provision
to
provide
alternate
employment
or
an
appointment
commensurate with the post held by the
deceased employee. It is not by way of
giving similarly placed life to the
dependents of the deceased. While
considering the provision pertaining to
relaxation under 1974 Rules, the very
object of compassionate appointment
cannot be ignored. This is what has been
reiterated by a Division Bench of this
Court in Smt. Madhulika Pathak Vs.
State of U.P. & ors. 2011 (3) ADJ 91.
The decision in Vivek Yadav (supra) has
been considered later on by another
Division Bench in Nagesh Chandra Vs.
Chief Engineer, Vivasthan Ga Warg &
Ors. decided on 7th January, 2011 in
Special Appeal No.36 of 2011 and Court
said:

"Though in the judgment it has been
held that when the rules are prevailing for
relaxation for making the application, a
member of the family, on attaining
majority, can file an application for due
consideration but in the judgment itself it
has been held that the law relating to
compassionate appointment is no longer
res integra. The right of compassionate
appointment does not confer a right but it
does
give
rise
to
the
legitimate
expectation in a person covered by the
rules that his application should be
considered, if otherwise he meets with the
requirement."

21. In the light of the exposition of
law, as discussed above, I do not find any
reason to issue such a mandamus, as
sought by the petitioner in the present writ
petition.

22. The writ petition therefore lacks
merit. Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN,J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA,J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 3782 of 2012

Madan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Its Home Secy &
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.S. Pipersania (S.C.)
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest Litigation-claiming release from
clutches of the owner of brick kilninspite of working from 18-22 hours not
getting any salary, the family members
denied medicines and hospitalizationdistrict Legal Services directed to inquire
and submit report-certain guide lines
issued for proper implementation of
Bounded Labour System Abolition Act.