Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. Court upheld Single Bench finding that appointment cannot be granted after significant lapse time as financial crisis from employee's death is presumed over.
Appeal dismissed; original order dated 02.03.2021 affirmed; application for appointment rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 284/2021
Naveen Kumar Doganwa S/o Late Shri Subhash Chandra Doganwa, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Balai, Resident Of 13 M L D Gharsana, Dist. Shri Ganganagar At Present C/o Rajendraprasad, Ward No. - 46, Ambedkar Nagar, Fathehpur Road, Sikar.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Gaur. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment / Order
18/07/2022
This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondents to provide him compassionate appointment in place of his father, who expired while in service has been dismissed.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Subhash Chandra Doganwa, father of the appellant while holding the post of Executive Engineer in Jodhpur Discom passed away on
(2 of 4)
[SAW-284/2021]
15.12.2012. The appellant, after the death of his father submitted an application to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter Rules, 1996). The application was favourably considered and offer of appointment was made in favour of the appellant vide order dated 06.02.2014. The appellant was directed to join on the post of Assistant-I within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the order. The appellant submitted an application dated 04.03.2014 requesting extension in joining time to pursue his B.Tech / B.E. course. However, the respondents did not respond to the petitioner’s application.
The appellant, after completion of B.Tech / B.E. course by way of representations dated 07.12.2015 and 26.10.2016, requested the respondents to offer him appointment on compassionate grounds as per this educational qualification but to no avail. The appellant filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the denial of appointment on compassionate grounds, which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 02.03.2021.
Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the object of the Rules, 1996 is to provide a helping hand to the family of deceased employee in harness and this help should be in such nature that the family may maintain itself with minimum dignity. Therefore, the request of the appellant to appoint him on a suitable post as per his educational qualification ought to have been accepted by the respondents. He further submitted that
(3 of 4)
[SAW-284/2021]
there is no provision which thwarts a claim for compassionate appointment as per the educational qualification. In the alternative, it was submitted that offer of appointment made to the petitioner on 06.02.2014 against the post of Assistant-I may be revived and direction be issued to the respondents to permit the appellant to join.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
In the matter of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden Oraon 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the concession of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis and penury that it faces at the time of death of sole bread winner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
We are in agreement with the reasons given by Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The application for compassionate appointment filed by the appellant in the year 2012 was accepted and he was offered appointment on the post of Assistant-I vide order dated 06.02.2014. The offer was not availed by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant and his family have survived without accepting the offer for the post of Assistant-I for all these years, by this time, the crisis that had befallen. It can be presumed on account of sudden demise of the appellant’s father is over, and hence, the appellant’s request for compassionate appointment as per educational qualification (B.Tech./B.E.) or by
(4 of 4)
[SAW-284/2021]
reviving the order dated 06.02.2014 cannot be acceded to. The whole objective of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the passing away of the sole bread winner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after the lapse of a significant time gap because it can be presumed that the crisis faced by the family must have been averted with the passage of time. The impugned order dated 02.03.2021 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in this intra court appeal, which fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
61-Prashant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether compassionate appointment can be granted after a significant lapse of time from the date of the offer.
Whether the family's financial crisis presumptively continues after several years since the death of the sole breadwinner.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the writ petition suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Coalfields Limited vs. Parden OraonRelied on¶26
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden Oraon 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 · Who else cites this
Naveen Kumar Doganwa
Chief Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Deputy Director, Personnel, Jodhpur Discom
Sandeep Mehta
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
