Compassionate Appointment, Employer Must Explore Alternative Posts, If Not Eligible For Specific Post : Patna High Court

Background Facts

The petitioner hails from Banka, Bihar, is the spouse of Late Guddu Kumar who served as a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and passed away on 10th October 2019 while still in the line of duty. After losing her husband, petitioner assumed the responsibility of caring for her two young children and aged in-laws without any income. On November 7, 2019, she sought for a compassionate appointment as the dependents of deceased government employees, having been widowed. She had the educational qualifications for the position, and other requirements, yet her application for a Group 'C' post was turned down several times by CISF officials. Her application was turned down solely on the basis that her height of 142.5 cm was below the required minimum height for OBC candidates of 155 cm, with a relaxation of 147.5 cm granted.

Aggrieved by the same, she filed a petition in the Patna High Court. She prayed for the order of rejection of compassionate appointment to be set aside; for the order to appoint her on compassionate grounds to be issued; and for damages occasioned by the unreasonable delays and suffering caused by the actions of the respondents.

The petitioner contended that the authorities did not consider any application for her seeking a different type of appointment or employment, including in Group 'D' posts, when such appointment is allowed under compassionate appointment policies. Also that Group 'D' posts do not have strict physical requirements. She noticed the Office Memorandum issued on April 3, 2012, through which, for compassionate reasons, allowances are made in relation to the children of deceased employees. The respondents argued that her application for a Group C post was turned down because she did not measure up to the minimum physical requirement of height, even went as far as the OBC relaxation.

Findings of the Court

It was stated by the court that the scope of compassionate appointments is to offer instant help to the family members of deceased government servants who are suddenly thrown into financial crisis owing to the loss of the bread earner of the family. It was pointed out by the court that the applicant for compassionate appointment did so without delay after the call of her deceased husband and faced protracted delays and numerous dismissals.

It was further observed by the court that the authorities were busy concentrating on the fact that the petitioner did not qualify for a Group 'C' position because of her height instead of considering her for other levels like Group 'D' positions where the petitioner was willing to take up such a vacancy. It was pointed out by the court that the office Memorandum dated 3rd April, 2012 which allowed for such variation to the rule in regard to the family members of the deceased workers which include consideration for Group 'D' posts.

The case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exceptional recruitment mechanism to address a family's sudden financial crisis due to an employee's death. It must be granted promptly, not as a vested right.

In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family.

It was noted by the court that the authorities did not take the petitioner's financial hardship into account. It was stated by the court that policies regarding compassionate appointments should not be implemented in an rigid manner but should be aimed at aiding the family that is facing difficulties.

The rejection order of January 4, 2023 was set aside by the court. It was further directed by the court that authorities should re-evaluate the petitioner's position. It also directed the authorities to examine petitioner's qualifications for any suitable post within Group 'D'.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5323 of 2023

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 112

Counsel for the Petitioner : Aatish Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Amrendra Nath Verma, Sr. Pancel Counsel; Abhirup, JC