Appellant, a married daughter of a deceased government employee, sought compassionate appointment. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that such appointment is an exception, not a right, and denial was justified as the employee was to retire within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2482 of 2015
Smt. Hirmat Bai D/o Late Shri Jailal Kurre, Aged about 32 years, R/o Ward No. 15, Old Civil Line, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
---Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.
Order on Board
Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice
25/01/2016
of the deceased-Jailal Kurre who died in harness on 16.2.2015. Her mother had given an affidavit that she was dependent on the Petitioner who was looking after. The husband of the Petitioner was unemployed. Rejection of the application for grant of compassionate appointment only on the ground that the policy for compassionate appointment did not include a married daughter is unjustified and arbitrary. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 296 of 2014 (Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh), a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 804 of 2015 (The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Arulmozhi), a Bench decision of the High Court of
2
Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 22171 of 2013 (Jayalakshmi v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.) and a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5592 of 2009 (Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. The State of Maharashtra).
3
appointment has always been considered an exception to the normal mode of appointment by advertisement and open competitive merit selection with eligibility for all to participate in the selection process. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. Each compassionate appointment defeats the right of another eligible to be considered for appointment only because he did not have the benefit of his relative being in government service and died in harness. The necessity for a job may be more in such person who is completely deprived of the opportunity for consideration and it may end up being given to a person who may not be in such dire straits but becomes eligible only because he/she was the descendant of a person who may have died in government service. Such a person shut out from consideration may even be more meritorious and may be of more use to the Government in public interest but would be stone walled only because he did not have the right descent, contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
(Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compassionate appointment can be granted to a married daughter when the deceased died in harness less than one year before superannuation.
Whether the family was suddenly faced with destitution given the imminent loss of income due to near-future superannuation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶19
W.P. (S) No. 296 of 2014 (Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh)
The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. ArulmozhiReferred¶19
Writ Appeal No. 804 of 2015 (The State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Arulmozhi)
Jayalakshmi v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.Referred¶19
Writ Petition No. 22171 of 2013 (Jayalakshmi v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.)
Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. The State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Writ Petition No. 5592 of 2009 (Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. The State of Maharashtra)
W.B. State Electricity Board v. Samir K. SarkarDistinguished¶28
(1999) 7 SCC 672 (W.B. State Electricity Board v. Samir K. Sarkar) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hirmat Bai D/o Late Shri Jailal Kurre
State of Chhattisgarh
Navin Sinha
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
