Compassionate Appointment is Not a Matter of Right But a Concession to Prevent Destitution – High Court of Punjab and Haryana Dismisses Petition for Compassionate Appointment
In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the court has reaffirmed the principle that compassionate appointments are not a matter of right but merely a concession intended to prevent the destitution of a deceased employee’s family. The ruling came in the case of Rani Devi versus Food Corporation of India and others, where the petitioner sought a compassionate appointment following her husband’s death in service.
Legal Point: The court discussed the scope and purpose of compassionate appointments under the existing legal framework, emphasizing that such appointments are meant to address immediate financial hardship caused by the untimely death of a government employee in service and are not to be treated as a matter of entitlement.
Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Rani Devi, had applied for a compassionate appointment after her husband, who was a laborer with the Food Corporation of India, passed away in 2008. Her application was initially lost and later rejected on the grounds of delay when resubmitted in 2012. The case raised issues about the timeliness of the application for compassionate appointments and the applicability of policies not in effect at the time of the employee’s death.
Court Assessment:
Eligibility and Timeliness: The court observed that the petitioner had failed to act within a reasonable time after the initial rejection of her application in 2012, which significantly weakened her case.
Legal Precedent: Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, Justice Jagmohan Bansal highlighted that compassionate appointments are discretionary, not obligatory, and should ideally be provided promptly after the employee’s death to alleviate sudden financial crises, not years later.
Policy Application: The court pointed out that the policy under which the petitioner sought relief was enacted in 2013, five years after her husband’s death, and was not retrospective, rendering it inapplicable to her case.
Destitution Not Proven: The judgment emphasized that the scheme’s objective was to prevent destitution, and there was no evidence suggesting that the petitioner’s family was facing such hardship currently.
Decision: Based on these findings, the court concluded that the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
Date of Decision: May 1, 2024.
Rani Devi versus Food Corporation of India and others,
