Dismissed¶164

The Union of India and Ors. v. Yasoda Mehra

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2025LPA/630/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death in harness; GREF/Pune; DOP&T Scheme office memorandum 09.10.1998; Ministry of Defence 'EXTRACT' 09.03.2001; clause 12(c) Committee vs Deputy Secretary; clause 7(e)/7(f) determination of vacancies; merit list serial no.43 of 230 candidates; 52 vacancies released 2012; widow dependent; Articles 14, 16, 77, 226; Clause-10 Letters Patent Appeal; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; delay in continuity; appeal by Union of India dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed and the learned Single Judge's direction to take necessary steps for the petitioner's compassionate appointment within eight weeks stands. ¶164

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Yasoda Mehra — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed and the learned Single Judge's direction to take necessary steps for the petitioner's compassionate appointment within eight weeks stands.

¶164

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence under the caption 'Extract', or the conditions stipulated in the document said to be the policy decision, prevails over the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India. +1 more

¶67

Court's answer

The documents at pages 69 and 76 are inconsistent with the Scheme for appointment on compassionate appointment formulated by the Nodal Department (DOP&T) and are therefore not to be relied upon; the denial of compassionate appointment rested solely on those documents.

¶140

Ratio / Principle

The two documents relied upon by the appellants (the page-69 'EXTRACT' of the Ministry of Defence and the page-76 'Procedure for recruitment of deceased dependants') are held not to be a Scheme formulated from time to time within the meaning of Clause 12(c) of the Scheme for compassionate appointment; a decision by giving go-by to the Scheme of the Nodal Department is impermissible.

¶136

Key takeaways

Consideration of applications and any change of policy under the compassionate appointment Scheme must be by the duly constituted Committee (Chairman and two Members of Deputy Secretary/Director rank) under clause 12(c); a Deputy Secretary acting in individual capacity cannot take such decision, otherwise the Scheme conferring power on the Committee would become redundant.ratio¶129
Rules of allocation of executive business formulated under Article 77 bind all departments; every department must uniformly follow the Rules/Schemes formulated by the Nodal Department (DOP&T) to avoid anarchy and inconsistency among departments.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (Clause-10) by the Union of India and GREF officials against the Single Judge's order dated 16.06.2017 in W.P.(S) No.4142 of 2014 directing compassionate appointment of the widow of a GREF employee who died in harness on 21.07.2010; she figured at serial no.43 of the 2012 merit list with 52 vacancies released. Held: (i) the Ministry of Defence documents relied on by the appellants — the 09.03.2001 'EXTRACT' issued under the signature of a Deputy Secretary in his individual capacity and the unsigned 'Procedure for recruitment of deceased dependants (Appendix-A)' providing monthly change of merit status — are not a Scheme formulated from time to time within clause 12(c) of the DOP&T Scheme (office memorandum dated 09.10.1998) and are inconsistent with it; decisions under the Scheme rest with the three-officer Committee, not a Deputy Secretary singly; (ii) under the Rules of allocation of business framed under Article 77, all departments are bound to follow the Nodal Department's Scheme uniformly; (iii) the delay objection fails as the proceedings are in continuity. The Single Judge's findings that no rules existed for preparing monthly merit-lists of destitutes, and that year-wise released quotas had to be filled from the yearly list, were upheld. Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.630 of 2017

¶3

------

¶4

1. The Union of India

¶5

2. The Officer-In-Charge, Records Office, General Reserve Engineer Force, Dighi Camp, Post Office & Police Station-Pune, DistrictPune

¶6

3. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Pune Accounts Office, General Reserve Engineer Force, Dighi Camp, Post Office & Police Station-Pune, District-Pune

¶7

…. …. Respondents/Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Yasoda Mehra, Wife of Late Satyanarayan Mehra, resident of Village-gujharia, Post Office-Basen, Police Station-Kersai, DistrictSimdega ..... .... Petitioner/Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶11

------ For the Appellants : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C. For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sriwastawa, Advocate (Through V.C.) ------ 20/Dated: 01.09.2025

¶12

Prayer

¶13

1. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 16^th June, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4142 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the learned Writ Court has directed by commanding upon the respondent to take necessary

¶14

¶15

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶16

steps for compassionate appointment of the petitioner within the period of eight weeks.

¶17

Facts

¶18

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:-

¶19

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the husband of the petitioner/respondent namely, Satyanarayhan Mehra GS-185507L DLR had joined General Reserve Engineer Force in the year 2002 and while he was posted at Gangtok (Sikkim) in the year 2010, he died in harness on 21.07.2010 while he was on duty.

¶20

(ii) After the death of the husband of the petitioner/respondent, a letter was issued on 31.07.2010 by the Officer-In-Charge, Record Officer, GREF, Pune with an application which has to be filled by the petitioner/respondent for her appointment on compassionate ground.

¶21

(iii) The petitioner/respondent duly submitted the filled application form within the stipulated period of time. But the appointment was not given to the petitioner and also full payment of retiral dues was not paid to her.

¶22

¶23

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶24

(iv) The petitioner thereafter made representation on 09.04.2014 but her representation has not been considered.

¶25

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the husband of the writ petitioner, while posted at Gangtok (Sikkim) died in harness on 21.07.2010. The dependent of the deceased employee namely Yasoda Mehra, the widow, has made an application for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Scheme formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India. Her case was considered and she was placed at serial no.43 amongst 230 candidates for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶26

4. The appointment has not been provided fairly for a long period, rather, she has been denied by excluding her from zone of consideration.

¶27

5. Hence, she has approached to the learned Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

6. The respondent had appeared and taken the ground that the eligibility of the writ petitioner has been assessed on 100 points scale and considered the issue of financial viability after accepting the application filed by the dependent of the deceased employee, who has died in harness on 21.07.2010.

¶29

7. The respondent had further pleaded before the learned Writ Court that the candidature of subsequent candidates have been found

¶30

¶31

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶32

to be in more need on the basis of the point wise consideration of the candidature of one or the other candidates.

¶33

8. The learned Writ Court had decided the writ petition on the ground that the case of the writ petitioner has been considered and she was placed at serial no.43 but due to the procedure of consideration of the subsequent candidates, who have been included in the list for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground throwing the candidature of the writ petitioner, cannot be said to be just and proper, since, once 52 vacancies have been released, the position of the petitioner since was at serial no.43 in the merit list in the year 2012, hence, the writ petitioner entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground and accordingly, appropriate direction was passed against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the respondendents/appellants.

¶34

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants-U.O.I.

¶35

9. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants-U.O.I. has

¶36

taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: -

¶37

(i) The learned Writ Court has not taken into consideration the policy decision formulated by the Ministry of Defence, wherein, the specific criteria have been inserted as in the procedure for recruitment of the deceased dependents under Clause 10 thereof, wherein, it has been provided

¶38

¶39

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶40

that the merit status of the individual will keep on changing every month as per the relative merit points obtained by the new incumbents, as approved by the Board of Officers (BOO).

¶41

(ii) It has been contended that the moment, the policy decision has been changed for consideration of candidature of one or the other candidates on the basis of merit status of the individual and once the other candidates have been included in the panel, hence, the comparative analysis of merit of one or the other candidates has been prepared, the position of the writ petition has gone down in the list and hence, she has not been appointed. The ground, therefore, has been raised that not appointing the writ petitioner on the compassionate ground therefore cannot be said to suffer from an error, rather, the same is in pursuance to the policy decision so taken by the appellants.

¶42

(iii) She has further submitted that the said policy decision has been formulated on the basis of the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground as contained in office memorandum dated 9^th October, 1998 and the Ministry of Defence has come out with the Scheme on 09.03.2001 also

¶43

¶44

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶45

giving the details of consideration of preparation of the list based upon the merit wise.

¶46

10. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that since all these facts have not been taken into consideration, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶47

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner

¶48

11. Per contra , Abhishek Sriwastawa, learned counsel appearing for respondent-writ petitioner (through V.C.) has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: -

¶49

(i) The interaction of the appellants, respondents to the writ petition is absolutely improper, rather, it is arbitrary, reason being that, they are duty bound to consider the cases for appointment on compassionate ground, is strictly on the basis of the Scheme formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training, as has been appended as Annexure-R-2 to the suppl. affidavit.

¶50

(ii) It has been contended that there is one provision in the said Scheme that once the candidate has been empaneled in the list for

¶51

¶52

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶53

compassionate appointment and it is open to the administrative ministry/department/office to take up the matter with other administrative ministries/departments/offices of Government of India to provide an appointment.

¶54

(iii) It has been contended that in order to get rid of the specific provision, the Ministry of Defence has formulated one Scheme said to be in the EXTRACT , which cannot be considered to be valid one being contrary to the Scheme Formulated by the DOP&T, Govt. of India.

¶55

(iv) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and on consideration of the fact that 52 vacancies were available and the writ petitioner was at serial no.43 and if in such circumstances, the respondents have been commanded to appoint the writ petitioner being within the availability of the vacancies, 52 in numbers, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to suffer from an error.

¶56

¶57

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶58

Analysis

¶59

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the factual aspect as pleaded in the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶60

13. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, since, her husband has died in harness on 21.07.2010. She has been assessed by the Screening Committee and her name figures at serial no.43 of the panel/merit list. Such consideration has been made on the basis of the Scheme floated by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India.

¶61

14. The appellants have taken the plea before the learned writ Court that she cannot be provided with appointment on compassionate ground, since, her name has been deleted from the merit list being found not having in the penury in comparison to that of the other candidates, the dependents who have come under the consideration zone subsequent to the death of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner.

¶62

15. The said consideration has been given by the appellants on the basis of a Scheme said to be formulated by the Ministry of Defence and one document has been appended as annexure-II to the affidavit.

¶63

¶64

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶65

16. The question therefore needs to be considered herein, i.e.,

¶66

(i) Whether the decision said to be taken by the

¶67

Ministry of Defence under the caption head Extract or the condition stipulated in the document said to be the policy decision, will prevail upon the Scheme formulated for appointment on compassionate ground by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India.

¶68

(ii) Whether the documents as available at page-69 and page-76 can be construed to be a Scheme formulated from time to time will be within the meaning of clause 12(c) of the “Scheme for compassionate appointment” as annexed as annexure R-2.

¶69

17. This Court has formulated the said issue, for the reason that, if the said issue will be answered in favour of the writ petitioner, then, the writ petitioner will be held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and thereby, the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge, will be said to be not suffer from an error. However, if the contrary view has been taken, then certainly, what has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, is said to be accepted.

¶70

18. The question of prevailing a Scheme, therefore, is the

¶71

¶72

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶73

paramount aspect in the matter to have the consideration of the lis .

¶74

19. The Govt. of India has formulated a Rule by allocating business in the different ministries, in exercise of power conferred under Article 77 of the Constitution of India.

¶75

20. The moment, the Rule of Executive Business has been formulated, the same will bind all other departments, since, the Rule formulated under the power conferred to the President of India in no way will allow to be deviated by the other departments, the same having been the binding force.

¶76

21. Here in the present case, the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India has formulated a Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central GovernmentRevised consolidated instructions on 09.10.1998 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Govt. of India. The copy of the same has been appended as Annexure-R-2 of the suppl. affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants.

¶77

22. We have gone through the object of the said office memorandum as available in the very first page, wherein, it has been referred that the existing instructions for making compassionate appointment under the Central Government have since been reviewed in the light of the various court judgments and other decisions including those taken on the various

¶78

¶79

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶80

recommendations contained in the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report as well as the Study Reports of 1990 and 1994 prepared by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on the subject and they have accordingly been revised/simplified.

¶81

23. The object of the said Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family, member of a government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

¶82

24. The ‘dependent of family member’ has been defined as under Note I of clause-2 thereof which includes (a) spouse; or (b) son (including adopted son); or (c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or (d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para.

¶83

25. The ‘eligibility’ has been defined as under clause-5 which is being quoted herein which reads as under:

¶84

5. ELIGIBILITY

¶85

(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (b)Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post a all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment

¶86

¶87

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶88

Rules.

¶89

26. The relevant for the purpose of the lis is the Scheme as under Clause-7 under the caption head “Determination/availability of vacancies”, for ready reference, the said clause is being quoted

¶90

as under:-

¶91

“7. DETERMINATION/AVAILABILITY OF VACANCIES

¶92

(a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available.

¶93

(b) Compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. The appointing authority may hold back upto 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment on compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against the appropriate category viz SC/ST/OBC/General depending upon the category to which he belongs. For example, if he belongs to SC category he will be adjusted against the SC reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if he belongs to General category he will be adjusted against the vacancy point meant for General category.

¶94

(c) While the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of Government servant on casual/daily wage/adhoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments.

¶95

(d) The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for

¶96

¶97

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶98

making compassionate appointment should not be exceeded by utilising any other vacancy e.g. sports quota vacancy.

¶99

(e) Employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

¶100

(f) If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.”

¶101

27. It is evident from the quoted part of the Scheme as referred above, particularly clause 7(e) that employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

¶102

28. Clause-7(f) provides that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of

¶103

¶104

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶105

India to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.

¶106

29. Clause 7(c) provides that while the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of Government servant on casual/daily wage/adhoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments.

¶107

30. It is, thus, evident that the entire Scheme which is to be followed by the different Departments coming under the different Ministries that the appointment is to be made on the basis of the Scheme formulated containing different clauses.

¶108

31. The ‘procedure’ has been defined under Clause-12, wherein, for the purpose of expediting the matter, the concept of Welfare Officer is there, as would be evident from clause-12(b), wherein, the Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office have been directed to meet the members of the family of the Government servant in question immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him.

¶109

32. It is further evident from clause-12(c) that an application for

¶110

¶111

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶112

appointment on compassionate grounds should be considered in the light of the instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment Division) on the subject by a committee of officers consisting of three officersone Chairman and two Members-of the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank in the case of attached and subordinate offices. The Welfare Officer may also be made one of the Members/Chairman of the committee depending upon his rank. The committee may meet during the second week of every month to consider cases received during the previous month. The applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the committee, if necessary, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. The reference of the clause 12(b) and 12(c) are being quoted as under:-

¶113

“12(b) The Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office should meet the members of the family of the Government servant in question immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him.

¶114

12(c) An application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be considered in the light of the instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment Division) on the subject by a committee of officers consisting of three officersone Chairman and two Members-of the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank

¶115

¶116

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶117

in the case of attached and subordinate offices. The Welfare Officer may also be made one of the Members/Chairman of the committee depending upon his rank. The committee may meet during the second week of every month to consider cases received during the previous month. The applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the committee, if necessary, for better appreciation of the facts of the case.”

¶118

33. This Court, after considering the condition stipulated under clause 12 particularly clause 12(b) that the idea of entrusting the word Welfare Officer is to expedite the matter and by casting duty upon the Welfare Officer to immediately contact with the dependent of the deceased family so that they may be convinced for making application for appointment on compassionate ground. This idea of the Central Government is to ensure that the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground be given its effectiveness in its letter and spirit. Further clause 12(c) stipulates that the compassionate appointment is to be given in the light of the instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment Division) on the subject by a committee of officers consisting of three officers-one Chairman and two Members-of the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank, meaning thereby, the committee if constituted in pursuance to the reference made under clause 12(c) being the Chairman and the Officers at the rank of Deputy Secretary or the Director in the Ministry/Department and if the committee take such decision, then

¶119

¶120

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶121

certainly, such decision said to be made in terms of the Scheme formulated by the Dept. of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India.

¶122

34. Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants upon the decision taken by the Committee from time to time, on the scheme for the compassionate appointment and the same has been relied, appended as Annexure-I (page-69 to the paper book) and another is available at page-76, part of Annexure-III.

¶123

35. This Court, in order to consider as to whether these two documents said to be a policy decision is in the light of the Clause 12(c) of the Scheme formulated for appointment on compassionate ground vide office memorandum dated 09.10.1998 as annexed as Annexure-R-2. The aforementioned annexures particularly the document as available at page-76 wherein at clause 10 it has been stated that the merit status of the individual is to keep on changing every month as per the relative merit points obtained by the new incumbents, as approved by the BOO, is the reason taken by the respondentappellants in declining to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶124

36. So far as the document as available at page-69 which has been shown to be “ EXTRACT, MINSTRY OF DEFENCE, D(Lab) with the subject: Scheme for compassionate appointmentRelative Merit Points and Revised Procedure for Selection.”

¶125

¶126

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶127

37. The same although has been issued by the Deputy Secretary, as would be evident from signature of the Deputy Secretary, namely, Shingara Singh, addressed to the Army Headquarters. While, the document as available at page-76 is without signature of any of the officers.

¶128

38. We, again have adverted to Clause 12(c), wherein, the cumulative decision is to be taken, i.e., by the duly constituted committee headed by one chairman and two members of the rank of the Deputy Secretary/Director in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank in the case of attached and subordinate offices.

¶129

39. Once the decision has been taken that the committee headed by the chairman will consider the application of compassionate appointment in the light of instructions time to time by DOPT then Deputy Secretary, then, it is only by the Committee, not by the Deputy Secretary in the individual capacity.

¶130

40. If the decision so taken said to be by the Deputy Secretary in the individual capacity, will be accepted as per the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, then, the entire Scheme of conferment of power of the Committee to take decision even for changing the policy decision, will become redundant, which cannot be said to be permissible and will not be permissible, reason being that, if the Scheme has been formulated by the Nodal Department, i.e., the Department of Personnel and

¶131

¶132

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶133

Training, Govt. of India, then, under the Rules of allocation of business amongst the different Departments, it is incumbent upon one or the other Departments to follow the Rules/Regulations/Schemes uniformly in order to avoid element of anarchy amongst the Departments and to get rid of inconsistency in the decision.

¶134

41. The question of jurisdiction therefore is the core of consideration by this Court and these two documents, first the document dated 09.03.2001 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary in the individual capacity, cannot be said to be in consonance with the Scheme formulated by the Nodal Department.

¶135

42. So far as the document available at page-76, i.e., Procedure for recruitment of deceased dependants (Appendix-A) is concerned, the procedure for recruitment of deceased dependent is having no bearing of any signature of any competent body/authority and it appears that it has been appended in the memo of appeal, appears to be Appendix to a document as Appendix-A.

¶136

43. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that these two document, upon which, the emphasis has been given in challenging the order passed by the learned Writ Court by giving go-by to the Scheme formulated by the Nodal Department, is held to be not a Scheme said to be formulated from time to time in

¶137

¶138

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶139

view of the provision of Clause-12 (c) of the appointment on compassionate ground.

¶140

44. This Court, since, has came to the conclusion that the document as available at page-69 and page-76 as referred hereinabove, is inconsistent with the Scheme made for appointment on compassionate ground, hence, the same is not to be relied upon, basis upon which, the appointment on compassionate ground has not been provided in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶141

45. We are conscious that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right being in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But once the Scheme has been formulated that will be said to be exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of providing social security to the dependent of the deceased family so that they may be saved due to starvation.

¶142

46. Once the State has formulated a Scheme, then the principle of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of providing appointment on compassionate ground will not be a question, rather, its implementation in a proper manner will be a question which we are considering in the present appeal.

¶143

47. We have also considered the issue of delay by keeping the fact into consideration that if there is delay in providing appointment on compassionate ground, then the appointment is not to be given

¶144

¶145

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶146

due to the reason that if the dependent of the bereaved family has survived fairly for a long period, then why to provide appointment on compassionate ground.

¶147

48. Herein, the husband of the writ petitioner has died in harness on 2107.2010. The consideration has been given of the claim of the writ petitioner, widow of the deceased employee and when the decision was not taken then in the year, 2014, the writ petition was filed being W.P.(S) No.4142 of 2014. The writ petition has been decided on 16.06.2017, thereafter, the present appeal has been preferred on 18.12.2017. Thus, the proceeding is in continuity, hence, the principle of delay will not be applicable by taking the ground of lethargic approach on behalf of the litigant concerned.

¶148

49. Admittedly, the writ petition was allowed in favour of the writ petitioner and thereafter, the appeal has been preferred by the appellants-U.O.I. The appeal is lying pending before this Court.

¶149

50. Herein, the proceeding therefore is in continuation and thus due to pendency of litigation which has not been preferred by the writ petitioner who is seeking to get an appointment on compassionate ground, the issue of delay will not be applicable.

¶150

51. Accordingly, issue no.(i) and issue no. (ii) are being answered.

¶151

52. Adverting to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we have found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the issue of eligibility of the writ petitioner, as per

¶152

¶153

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶154

the condition stipulated in the Scheme.

¶155

53. The learned writ Court has also taken into consideration that the respondents have not come out with any Scheme of compassionate appointment finding reference of any rules/guidelines for preparing merit list of destitutes of each month.

¶156

54. Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that once the respondents, appellants herein that they released quota for appointment year-wise, appointments for each year within the vacancies notified must be made.

¶157

55. Further, it has been opined by referring to the counter affidavit that the same is completely silent on the aspect however the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was dealt with. If the vacancies for compassionate appointment, has to be released each year, the list of candidates prepared each year should be first considered against those vacancies.

¶158

56. The learned Single Judge has also referred therein about the release of 52 vacancies in the merit list of the year, 2012 and the name of the petitioner find mentioned at serial no.43, which led the learned Single Judge to direct the respondent to take necessary steps for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶159

57. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge to the effect that no Rules/guidelines for preparing merit-list of destitutes each month, is a correct finding in view of the provision as made

¶160

¶161

2025:JHHC:26461-DB

¶162

under clause 7(e) and clause 7(f) dealt read with clause 12(c) as referred in detail hereinabove.

¶163

58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reasons, is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶164

59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶165

60. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶166

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶167

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶168

Rohit/- A.F.R.

¶169