# Ltd., New Delhi and Anr v. Pramoda

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-23
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ltd-new-delhi-and-anr-v-pramoda-42148
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate
Appointment-petitioner
challenge the order-of his appointment
on class IV post-claiming appointment as
class III employees-itself goes to show
not facing penury condition-in garb of
compassionate appointment-claim status
by short circuit-without facing selection
for promotion-can not be acceptedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para 14

In such circumstances, if the petitioner is
not inclined to accept the aforesaid
appointment he cannot claim that he
should be appointed on compassionate
to the better status which shows that
the petitioner is not actually facing the
condition of penury and appointment on
compassionate basis is not being claimed
on account of financial scarcity but to
claim an office of the status by short
circuit way ignoring the process of
regular selection which is contrary to the
very
concept
of
compassionate
appointment.
Case law discussed:
1997 (11) SCC 390; 1999 (I) LLJ 539; AIR
1998 SC 2230; AIR 2000 SC 2782; AIR 2004
SC 4155; AIR 1998 SC 2612; AIR 2005 SC
106; 2009 (6) SCC 481; 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

162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

the department feels that any particular
officer is responsible for these laches and
indifference, in that event, after fixing the
responsibility, it would be open for the
department to recover such amount of
compensation from the said responsible
officer, even if he has retired in the
meantime.

18. The writ petition stands allowed in
above terms.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Service Single No. - 2725 of 1993

Ashok Kumar Varma

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.G.S. Parihar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate
Appointment-petitioner
challenge the order-of his appointment
on class IV post-claiming appointment as
class III employees-itself goes to show
not facing penury condition-in garb of
compassionate appointment-claim status
by short circuit-without facing selection
for promotion-can not be acceptedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para 14

In such circumstances, if the petitioner is
not inclined to accept the aforesaid
appointment he cannot claim that he
should be appointed on compassionate
to the better status which shows that
the petitioner is not actually facing the
condition of penury and appointment on
compassionate basis is not being claimed
on account of financial scarcity but to
claim an office of the status by short
circuit way ignoring the process of
regular selection which is contrary to the
very
concept
of
compassionate
appointment.
Case law discussed:
1997 (11) SCC 390; 1999 (I) LLJ 539; AIR
1998 SC 2230; AIR 2000 SC 2782; AIR 2004
SC 4155; AIR 1998 SC 2612; AIR 2005 SC
106; 2009 (6) SCC 481; 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. Sri H.G.S.Parihar, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that he has no
instructions in the matter. No other
counsel has appeared. However, I have
perused the record.

2. The petitioner has sought
compassionate appointment and by means
of the order dated 24.3.1993 he was
appointed as Class IV employee. The
aforesaid order is under challenge and the
petitioner
has
sought
a
mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint
him on Class III post on compassionate
basis.

3. Repeatedly, it has been held that
the purpose and object of compassionate
appointment is to enable the members of
family of the deceased employee in
penury, due to sudden demise of the sole
breadwinner, get support and succour to
sustain themselves and not to face
hardship for their bare sustenance.

4. In Managing Director, MMTC
Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pramoda
1 All] Ashok Kumar Varma V. State of U.P.

163
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."

5. 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."

6. 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."

7. 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"

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. In National Hydroelectric
Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

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."

11. 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
Dependents 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."

12. 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:

"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."

13. 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
1 All] S.J.H. Rizvi V. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others

165
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."

14. In such circumstances, if the
petitioner is not inclined to accept the
aforesaid appointment he cannot claim
that
he
should
be
appointed
on
compassionate to the better status which
shows that the petitioner is not actually
facing the condition of penury and
appointment on compassionate basis is
not being claimed on account of financial
scarcity but to claim an office of the status
by short circuit way ignoring the process
of regular selection which is contrary to
the very concept of compassionate
appointment.

15. Dismissed.

16. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Service Single No. - 3185 of 1991

S.J.H.Rizvi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr.L.P.Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prahlad
Dr.Ashok Nigam
Sri Nakul Dubey
Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Regularization-working as camp clerkcontinuously w.e.f. 01.10.1983 to July
1987-subsequent working in pursuance
of interim order-appointment de horse
the rules can not claim regularization as
matter of right-by subsequent order
dated 22.04.191 appointment on class
4th post as temporary work charge
employee-entire
functioning
of
petitioner shall be treated working on
class
4th
Post-entitled
for
every
consequential benefits from 22.04.1991No recovery of excess amount (if already
paid treating as camp clerk) shall be
made.

Held: Para 21

In the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, in my view, ends of justice
would meet and to this Dr. L.P. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
A.P.Singh
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents also agree that petitioner
shall be treated to have continued to
work as a Class IV employee pursuant to
office order dated 22.4.1991 with effect