[Compassionate Appointment] Can't Presume A Person To Be Financially Stable Merely Because He Got Married: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the marriage of an individual is no ground to deny him/her a compassionate appointment as entering into a marital relationship doesn't raise a presumption that a person is financially stable.

With this, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan set aside an order of the DIG (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P denying compassionate appointment to the younger son of a UP Police constable who died during his service tenure.

"The marriage by itself would not denude an individual of his financial status. The poorest person of the country has a right to marry while his financial status may remain intact. Any interpretation by the administrative authorities on the sole criteria of marriage of an individual denuding the financial status of the said individual is arbitrary and has no nexus to the object of compassionate appointment," the Court said.

The case in brief

One Prem Shankar Dwivedi was a UP Police Constable and he died during his service tenure in August 1999. His wife (petitioner no. 1) submitted a representation in September 1999, before the appropriate authority requesting that since she is an illiterate lady and, therefore, a compassionate appointment may be granted to her elder son.

An appointment letter was issued to the elder son in 2004, however, since he was found mentally unstable in the medical examination, therefore, petitioner no. 1 moved another representation seeking a compassionate appointment for her younger son (petitioner no. 2) in 2005.

Till 2008, no action was taken on her representations, therefore, she moved a writ plea before the High Court. In the year 2012, the HC directed the respondents to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2 and pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks.

Pursuant to this, an order was passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of petitioner no. 2 in January 2015 by declining to relax the 5-year time limit provided in the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which says that an application for employment shall be made within a period of five years from the date of death of the government servant

It was also observed in the rejection order that the petitioners are not suffering from a financial crisis as they are getting a family pension of Rs. 7000/- per month and further income from agricultural land to the tune of Rs. 7700/- per month. 

Importantly, the respondents further took note of the fact that petitioner no. 2 is married and in case the financial condition of the petitioner's family was not good, then petitioner no. 2 would not have married.

Challenging the rejection order, the petitioners moved to the High Court.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the representation could not have been rejected on the ground of it being time barred (i.e., considering it to have been filed after 5 years of the death of the government servant/father) as the petitioner no. 1 had preferred first application for compassionate appointment in the year 1999 itself and thereafter in 2006, she had requested the change of the name of the beneficiary of compassionate appointment on the ground that her elder son was mentally unfit for the job.

Regarding the assessment made by the respondents about the financial status of the petitioners, the Court noted that they did not consider as to whether a meagre amount of Rs.14,700/- per month would be enough to support a family member of four persons of the deceased employee, especially in view of the fact that one of the sons of the deceased employee is having mental sickness and expenditure is being incurred in his well-being.

Significantly, the Court also held that the finding recorded by the respondents in the impugned order that petitioner no. 2 is married and in case the family was suffering from financial constraint then petitioner no. 2 would not have married was wholly unsustainable in law.

"It is to be noted that the right to marry a person of one's own choice is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The marriage of a person has no rational nexus with the financial status of the person. It is to be noted that even a poor person has a right to marry under the Constitution and the respondents by passing the impugned order have held that petitioner no. 2 is married and in case the financial position of the petitioners was not good then the petitioner no. 2 would not have married. The aforesaid finding of connecting the financial condition with the marriage is having no rational nexus. Even a poor person can marry despite financial constraint," the Court remarked.

Further, the Court also observed that the rules of compassionate appointment do not provide that the marriage of an individual would raise a presumption that the individual has the financial capacity to support himself.

"The marital status of the members of the family may be a factor to consider the number of dependents in the family or number of bread earners in the family and such an approach should be considered to determine the financial crisis of the family of the deceased employee," the Court added as it set aside the order of the respondent.

Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to respondent no. 2 to consider the application for compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months.

Case title - Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17078 of 2015]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479

Click here To Read/Download Order