The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court held that the claim is not a matter of right, especially considering over 20 years had passed since the father's death in 2003.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7590/2005
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hazari Lal, 2/157, Housing Board Colony, Behind Roadwaya Bus Stand, Sikar
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
11/08/2023
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:
“Therefore, in the facts and circumstances explained above, it is prayed most respectfully that :- i. Directions may be given to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on clerk post in respondent bank immediately with all consequential benefits. ii. Any other order/ relief which appears to be just and correct may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iii. Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner as his is no mistake in filing this petition and the respondent bank has forced him to do so. His family is already in financial distress due to death of his father.”
[CW-7590/2005]
(2 of 3)
Contents of the petition indicates that father of the petitioner died while in service on 13.10.2003 and after death of the father of the petitioner his mother submitted an application before the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents vide letter dated 15.09.2005 informed the authorities that no post is lying vacant in the Bank, hence appointment on compassionate grounds was not possible. Under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant petition seeking directions against the respondents for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
This fact is not in dispute that father of the petitioner died way back in the year 2003 and more than 20 years have passed thereafter. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of death of an employee while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and it has also been held that though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be given remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to
[CW-7590/2005]
substitute a scheme to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review.
Taking into consideration the material available on record and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions put forward by counsel for the petitioner, do not carry any merit. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/64
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be condoned when more than 20 years have elapsed since the death of the employee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirval SinghFollowed¶21
2019(6) SCC 774 · Who else cites this
Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & AnrFollowed¶21
2020(2) SCC 729 · Who else cites this
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hazari Lal
The Project Officer Cum Secretary, Sikar Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Sikar Rajasthan
The Project Director, Department Of Co-Operative, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
