A writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, who is the daughter of a deceased government employee, was dismissed. The High Court held that the petition was without merit as the twenty-year gap between the death and application negated the necessity of tiding over immediate financial distress.
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.
$~56
+ Date of Decision: 07.8.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 8580/2019
UMA GAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shweta Rani, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
Page 1 of 3
W.P.(C.) No.8580/2019
statement of the counsel for the respondent that after 27.01.2014, the date when an official communication was written by the respondent No.4/DIG, CISF, Calcutta, to the petitioner declining her request for compassionate appointment on the ground that more than 20 years had lapsed from the date of death of the petitioner’s father, the maximum period of 15 years as prescribed has subsequently been deleted by way of an amendment, vide Circular No.08/2016 dated 29.9.2016. On that basis, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a fresh representation which she did make. That representation has been rejected on 16/18.02.2019 on the ground that the claim for compassionate appointment had been made belatedly. The ground taken in the said communication is that Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of late Sh. Puran Chand-deceased (father of the petitioner), did not apply for her eldest daughter who gained majority in 1999 itself. Rather she chose the youngest daughter for compassionate appointment who gained majority in 2011. This shows that there was no pecuniary distress suffered by the family of the deceased during the said period. The second reason given by the respondent is that all the children of the deceased are married, implying thereby that they are able to sustain not only themselves, but also their spouses.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(C.) No.8580/2019
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
AUGUST 07, 2019
ib/jitender
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(C.) No.8580/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a compassionate appointment application made 26 years after the employee's death is maintainable.
Whether the deletion of the 15-year time limit by a circular in 2016 allows a late claim.
Whether the petitioner's family suffered pecuniary distress requiring compassionate appointment.
UMA GAYAL
UNION OF INDIA
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
