Administrators Often Lose Objectivity When Visited With Judicial Command: Allahabad HC On Rejection Of Compassionate Appointment Claim After Filing Of Writ

While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”

The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.

“In administrative decision making, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the primary decision maker, the Administrator, sometimes loses his objectivity, the moment he is visited with a judicial command to do his duty. Either he is panicked into acting erratically and taking a wrong decision or turns malicious and motivated to teach the man, who has brought a writ to him of any kind.”

Further, Justice J.J. Munir held that the relevant factor for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment is to see the difference between the income of the deceased at the time of his death and the family income after the death.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari and others to hold that

“The position of the law that then appears is that what has to be compared is the income of the deceased at the time of his death and the family's income after his demise from various sources. This would be a safe index to assess, if indeed the family have been plunged into a crisis or they still have a reasonably normal life to lead, which is not ridden by financial crisis.”

Case Background

Petitioner's father, a Stock Clerk in the Establishment of the District Cane Officer, Chandausi, District Sambhal, died in harness in 2011 leaving behind his widow, a son and three daughters. At the time of his father's death, petitioner was a minor. In 2020, after attaining majority, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, in 2021, District Cane Officer, Sambhal demanded some documents which were supplied by the petitioner.

Since no action was taken by the authorities despite repeated representations by the petitioner, he approached the High Court. Petitioner claimed that salary and post retiral dues of the father were not cleared by the authorities.

High Court Verdict

The Court, on 15.09.2023, had issued a show cause notice to the District Cane Officer, Sambhal demanding explanation as to why petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment had not been considered. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Cane Officer, Sambhal it was submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner had been rejected on 25.09.2023.

The Court observed that petitioner's father died in 2011. No application was made by the wife of the petitioner and the family had managed to live for 10 years.

The Court observed that the Committee formed under the U.P. Cooperative Cane Service Regulations, 1975 for enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 had concluded that since the wife had not applied for compassionate appointment after the death of her husband, there was no immediate hardship to the family. The Committee had also concluded that compassionate appointment cannot be sought after 10 years.

The Court observed that though the Committee had considered widow working as an Anganwadi Karyakatri and was running the Anganwadi Centre from her home, it had failed to consider the return on family investments, death-cum-retirement benefits received by the family, and the fact that one daughter was still unmarried. The Court held that these are relevant considerations for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment.

Regarding the observation of the Committee that the family had survived 12 years without the appointment, Justice Munir observed

“It is true that the family have not landed in an orphanage, but between the family becoming a causality of the civilization on account of the breadwinner's untimely death and a sufficiently prosperous or normal life is the twilight zone, where they could be seen struggling to make end's meet.”

The Court observed that Anganwadi Karyakatri was not a government employment but a contractual one with an honorarium of Rs.3250/- - 6500/- per month. The Court held that that the Authority ought have inquired as to why the widow did not chose to apply for compassionate appointment after her husband's death. Further, the Court held that to hold that petitioner had sufficient income from the agricultural land, the Committee ought to have inquired about the annual yield from the land.

The Court held that the Authority has sufficient power to condone the delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment, especially when the person applying was a minor at the time of the death of the employee.

“So far as the delay in making the application for compassionate appointment is concerned, it is obvious that the petitioner was a 9 years old boy, when his father passed away. He cannot be blamed for making the application 9 years after his demise. He apparently made the necessary application as soon as he attained majority. There is always adequate provision to consider the case of minors, while exercising the power to condone delay, in a deserving case by the Appointing Authority, where the delay is more than five years.”

The Court held that the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment was passed in a nonchalant manner, which could be due to the writ being issued against them.

Accordingly, the order was quashed and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

Click Here To Read/Download Order