Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Quashed Merely Because It Was Made By An Incompetent Authority: Patna High Court

A single-judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Purnendu Singh has held that a compassionate appointment could not be quashed merely because the appointment was irregular.

The Court was hearing a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Secretary/Respondent that rejected his claim for continuity of service from the period of initial appointment. Initially, the petitioner's appointment was made by the Chief Engineer/Respondent who was not a competent authority to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate grounds. Later, this appointment was cancelled and Petitioner was re-appointed by the Secretary. He was not paid a salary for the period of his initial appointment.

The High Court held that non-payment of the arrears of salary to the Petitioner merely because his appointment was made by an incompetent authority is unjustified. Even though it was an 'irregular appointment', the Court observed that the Petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the fault of the Chief Engineer.

“…merely on the ground that the appointment was made by an incompetent authority and allowing the petitioner to continue in service on the applicable pay sale and having denied from payment of arrear of the salary and other consequential relief(s) from the initial date of appointment…can not be sustained.”

While enumerating on the considerations to be taken into account while determining the claim of compassionate appointment, it stated that a claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right.

“A claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and according to the scheme/policy, it is founded on considering immediacy upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family must be established that the dependents of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of livelihood was provided a family would not be able to make both ends meet.”

In the present case, observing that the Petitioner's appointment was recommended by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and the same was not questioned by the Respondent authorities, the Court quashed the order of the Secretary that rejected the claim of the Petitioner for continuity of his service. It directed the Respondent authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner afresh.

Case: Amrendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Water Resources Department & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16803 of 2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order