HC junks man’s plea for compassionate job 12 years after cop father’s death

The petitioner Tinku had filed an LPA (Letter Patents Appeal) before a division Bench against the single Bench order dismissing his petition for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Tinku’s father, Jai Parkash, a Haryana Police constable, died on November 22, 1997. At that point of time a policy dated May 8, 1995, which provides that ex-gratia employment shall be confined to Class-III and Class-IV posts only and which was for one step lower than of the deceased employee, was in force.
The application as such had to be moved within three years of the death of the employee as per the policy. The policy, however, was modified on August 31, 1995, providing that seniority list of pending ex-gratia cases have to be maintained by every Head of the Department till the time appointment is offered against a vacancy either in that department or some other department. Tinku who was only 7 years old when his father died, on attaining majority, moved an application on January 23, 2009, seeking appointment on the post that his father had been working on. The same was rejected vide order dated April 28, 2009 by placing reliance upon government instructions dated March 22, 1999, that the job under ex-gratia scheme can be provided if the dependent is minor at the time of the death and he can be offered job provided he becomes major in age during the time limit of three years.

Tinku through his counsel contended that the application should have been considered by the Haryana government by keeping in mind the date of death, which was November 22, 1997 and the policy which was in vogue on May 8, 1995, and which had been modified on August 31, 1995. It was contended that the name of the appellant had been entered in the minors’ register as per direction of the DGP on April 15, 1998. It had been held out at that time that the son would be given appointment on attaining the age of majority as the wife had not opted for the compassionate appointment benefit.

On the contrary, appearing for Haryana, Deputy Advocate General Palika Monga relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that the compassionate appointment is given only to get over the death of the bread earner at that point of time and at this belated stage the benefit is not likely to be granted. There was a right of consideration which was duly done and appointment under the head of compassion is only an exception as per the settled law and it is not a normal mode of recruitment.

The division Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri, after hearing the matter held that “The employee had died on November 22, 1997 and at that time the appellant was only 7 years old. The mother as such had never opted for compassionate appointment at the time of the death for the reasons best known to her. An adverse inference can be drawn that the family was not suffering from penury….”
“Keeping in view the settled principle that the compassionate appointment cannot be used as a source of appointment and it is only an exception, this court is of the opinion that the claim for appointment at that belated stage was not justified”, said the division Bench.