Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Claimed/Offered After A Significant Lapse Of Time And After Crisis Is Over: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

"The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis suffered by the bereaved family due to the unexpected death of the employee concerned," the Court remarked.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while dismissing the plea of one Sanjay Kumar Singh who sought appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his adoptive father, who died in harness in January 1995.

The Court also held that the claim of the petitioner for a compassionate appointment at a belated stage, after 27 years of the death of his father, cannot be sustained.

The case in brief

Essentially, Singh was adopted as a son in the year 1990 by Ram Achal Singh, a state government employee (who died in harness in Jan 1995). After his father's death, Singh applied for employment in the department after four years, that is in the year 1999.

In September 2003, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the adopted son was not included in the definition of 'family' under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Therefore, he moved to the High Court challenging the 2003 order. It was his primary contention that the cause of the petitioner still survives as the adopted son is now included in the definition of family, therefore, his claim may be considered and he be appointed on compassionate grounds.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that when the petitioner had made a claim of compassionate appointment, then the definition of 'family' in Rules, 1974 was limited to relations, namely, (i) wife or husband; (ii) sons; (iii) unmarried and widowed daughter.

The Court further observed that thereafter an amendment was carried out which was published in U.P. Gazette dated 22.12.2011, wherein the adopted son was also included.

However, the Court noted that when the impugned order was made (denying him the appointment on the compassionate ground) there was no provision to provide an appointment to the adoptive son and therefore, the Court held that the order was rightly made and the petitioner's claim was rightly denied.

Further, noting that more than 27 years have passed since the death of the adoptive father of the petitioner, the Court also stressed that the object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis suffered by the bereaved family due to the unexpected death of the employee concerned.

"The substantial delay in the present case is now more than 27 years which goes against the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the impugned order as well as considering the claim of the petitioner for a compassionate appointment at a belated stage, after 27 years of the death of his father, cannot be sustained. A compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over," the Court remarked as it dismissed the plea.

Case title - Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [WRIT - A No. - 47252 of 2003]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 377

Click Here To Read/Download Order