Compassionate Appointment Meant For 'Immediate Financial Difficulties': P&H HC Refuses Relief To Man Whose Father 'Died' In '1984 Operation Blue Star'

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea seeking compassionate appointment to a son whose father allegedly died in 1984 Operation Blue Star, observing that compassionate appointment is given only to come out "from the immediate financial difficulties."

While noting that the petitioner attained majority in 1998 and a further 12 years passed by when his case was rejected, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said, "In these circumstances, without examining the issue of whether the appointment was available to the families who died during the operation Blue Star, this Court finds that by efflux of time after almost more than 20 years, compassionate appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner, although it is not a regular mode of appointment but the same is given to the dependent of the deceased Government servant only to come out from the immediate financial difficulties which cannot be said to be existing as on today in relation to the petitioner."

The Court was seized of a writ petition filed in 2013 seeking issuance of directions to the union government to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father during the operation Blue Star conducted at Golden Temple, Amritsar in 1984.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a minor at that time and claimed compassionate appointment based on the circular issued by the Government granting compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of the persons killed in terrorism/riots.

It was further submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents stating that the persons who died during the said Operation Blue Star would not come within the category of persons killed during the terrorism or riot.

Considering the plea, the Court without deciding the issue of whether the appointment was available to the families who died during the operation Blue Star, opined that due to "efflux of time" after almost more than 20 years, compassionate appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner.

Justice Sharma also emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment. It is granted to the dependents of the deceased government servant solely to alleviate immediate financial difficulties, which cannot be said to exist as of today in relation to the petitioner.

In the light of the above, the writ petition was dismissed.

It is pertinent to note that, earlier this year Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari And Ors. Etc. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175], while summarising the principles on compassionate appointment held that, "compassionate appointment is not a vested right". A claim for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased employee may not be entertained after a lapse of a considerable period since the death. The Court opined -

“...the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts.”

Appearance: Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1.

Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

M.S. Virk, Advocate for Dr. P.K. Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 282

Title: Bal Amrit Singh v. UOI & Ors.

Click here to read/download the order