High Court Bench at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment. The Court held that appointment is a concession, not a right, and upheld the Administrative Tribunal's order based on financial assessment and lack of vacancies.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4928/2020
Ravi Kumar Jeph S/o Late Sh. Shrawan Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 60/45, Shyopur Road, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinsukh Jain with Mr. Jay Upadhyay. Mr. Sourabh Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
19/12/2023
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
(2 of 7)
petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was considered by the committee of the respondent department, however, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the committee. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the competent authority.
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
(3 of 7)
mother of the petitioner was not a valid reason and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
(4 of 7)
considered by the committee appointed for the purpose and which made the following recommendation :-
“The Committee has found that family of deceased govt. servant comprises of his wife, a daughter and a son. Both son & daughter are unmarried and unemployed. The family is having a residential house in village, 33 acres of agriculture land and a HIG house in Jaipur. Annual income from agricultural land is Rs. 0.75 lacs. Family is having liability of education and marriage of one son and daughter. Further social responsibility of 5 married daughters is also on the family. Family is getting Rs. 85,000/- approx. as monthly pension. The monthly earnings of the family appear to be sufficient for livelihood as well as fulfillment of social obligations. After making a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition and liabilities of the family, the Committee did not find any merit in the case and recommends final closure of request of Shri Ravi Kumar Jeph for compassionate appointment.”
“As per Para 18(c) of the DOPT’s OM F.No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D) dated 16.01.2013, consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment, while considering a request for appointment on compassionate appointment a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc.
After making a balanced and objective assessment of the financial conditions and liabilities in respect of all the 19 applicants, the Committee has recommended for appointment of 03 most deserving candidates. After detailed deliberations, due to nonavailability of the more vacancies in compassionate appointment quota, cases of 08 applicants were recommended for consideration by the next committee. Further, after detailed analysis of financial conditions and liabilities of families and other status, cases of 08 applicants including Shri Ravi Kumar Jeph, the petitioner, were recommended for final closure.
(5 of 7)
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
The recommendations of the Committee were placed before the competent authority who accepted the recommendations of the Committee. The applicant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 22.06.2016 of the respondents. (Annexure-A/4 to Original Application No.677/2019 – Annexure-1 to Writ Petition).”
“14. It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors.: (2008) 15 SCC 560, it was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.”
(6 of 7)
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
“7. While considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties a recent decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra) on the appointment on compassionate ground is required to be referred to. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on appointment on compassionate grounds it is observed and held that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. It is further observed that the dependent of the deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy. It is further observed and held that the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. It is further observed he/she is, however, entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable on the day of death of the Government employee. The law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision on grant of appointment on compassionate ground can be summarized as under:
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”
[2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB]
[CW-4928/2020]
(7 of 7)
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
Rmathur/68
3 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of compassionate appointment application is justified when family assets and pension indicate sufficient financial standing?
Whether compassionate appointment is a right or a concession subject to merit and vacancy norms?
Whether Tribunal correctly held that no discrimination occurred in the selection process for compassionate appointment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Singh Rathore v. Union of India & Ors.Explained¶21
Dinesh Singh Rathore v. Union of India & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14628/2014
Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.Distinguished¶8
Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. : 2005(10) SCC 289 · Who else cites this
Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors.Explained¶47
Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors. : (2008) 15 SCC 560 · Who else cites this
N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Explained¶46
N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. : (2020) 7 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. SomyashreeExplained¶48
The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree : AIR 2021 SC 5620 · Who else cites this
Ravi Kumar Jeph
Joint Director, Office Of The Chief Commissioner, Cgst And Central Excise (Jaipur Zone)
Commissiner Central Exicise Commissionerate
Arun Bhansali
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
