The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The Court held that the petitioner's claim was frivolous and time-barred, noting a ten-year delay in filing the petition and concluding that such claims require urgency and cannot be entertained belatedly based on sympathy.
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
WPS No. 3094 of 2014
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioner | Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent/State | Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
21/01/2016
2
not be considered beyond the period of three years from the date of death of government employee.
3
before the court subsequently is sufficient to infer that he was not in penury or any financial crisis.
4
“11…….it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
1 (1997) 8 SCC 85
2 2006 (5) SCC 766
5
compassionate grounds, is to provide succor to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an antithesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved.”
“19.The courts and tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. The courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment to all those who seek a court's intervention. The courts and tribunals must understand that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate grounds could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are misplaced sympathy and compassion.”
Sd/(P.Sam Koshy) JUDGE
inder
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a delay of approximately ten years from the date of the deceased employee's death.
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment lacks merit given the excessive lapse of time and failure to justify the delay.
Whether the impugned orders rejecting the compassionate appointment due to delay are sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim SinghReferred¶10
(1997) 8 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
State of J & K v. Sajad Ahmed MirReferred¶11
2006 (5) SCC 766 · Who else cites this
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Prabhat SinghApplied¶11
(2012)13 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Sandeep Kumar Yadav
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
