Compassionate Appointment Intended To Provide "Urgent Relief" To Bereaved Family: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Grant Benefit After 5 Yrs Of Death

The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Mauna Bhatt made the above remarks while hearing an appeal preferred by the son of a Peon in the Road and Building Department under the Panchayat, who died in harness. Admittedly, the Appellant (original petitioner) had approached the court after lapse of almost five years.

Refusing to grant relief at such a belated stage, the Bench observed,

"Policy of compassionate appointment is intended to give immediate relief to the family of the deceased upon death of the deceased. It is a one time succor when the family lunges into economic crises upon death of bread earner. While on one hand the compassionate benefit is not a matter of right and would offend the principle of equality in employment, on the other hand the passage of time would further negate the claim of a person to be given a compassionate benefit, for, the belated grant of benefit could not be justified as it would lose the very purpose against the compassionate appointment to be offered and the scheme for such appointments to be implemented."

The petitioner had sought compassionate appointment. He challenged the single-judge order on the ground that it directed payment of lump-sum amount (compensation). Significantly, the Panchayat had also challenged the order.

The Petitioner stated that there was a delay in filing the petition of almost five years because the family had to spend a huge amount towards medical expenses of the father who suffered from hemorrhage. The Single Judge had accepted this reasoning and had held that the retirement benefit could not be a ground to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment or compensation.

However, the Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge on this issue and opined that there was no adequate explanation for delay on the behalf of the Petitioner who wanted to enforce his rights under the compassionate scheme.

The Bench ventured forth to aver thus:

"Mere family circumstances and that too about the marriage of relatives, divorce and such family disputes could not be said to be good ground which could adequately and satisfactorily explain the long passage of time on part of the petitioner who wanted to enforce his rights under the compassionate scheme to get the benefit on the compassionate basis...A litigant who cares little for his right for long time, loses right to relief. This principle has applicability with greater force when it comes to the case of compassionate appointment having regard to the nature of the benefit and the claim to be enforced."

It was also noted by the Bench that the Petitioner's case for appointment was rejected thrice. When the Petitioner sought relief from the Court, there was a delay of five years during which the family could survive. Reliance was placed on N.C.Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, [(2020) 7 SCC 617] to conclude:

"Appointment on compassionate appointment to be offered to the dependent of the deceased employee is an exception to norms that all vacancies in the government departments should be filled in in terms of tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

Further, per the Bench, it was trite principle that the policy of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief and succor to the family which 'lunges into economic crises upon death of bread earner.' This appoint was not a matter of right and would offend the principle of compassionate benefit. Keeping in view these principles of compassionate appointment, the Bench held that delay would disentitle the Petitioner from lump-sum compensation and compassionate appointment.

Case Title: RAJESHKUMAR VISHNUPRASAD JOSHI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT