Oral Judgment

[1] Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as also Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.3, at length.

[2] The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

          "A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the petitioner is entitled for the appointment on the compassionate ground and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner forthwith;

          And in alternatively Be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the lump-sum compensation as per the latest Government Resolution (enhancing the amount of compensation) to the petitioner with interest till disbursement of the amount;

          B) Be pleased to award exemplary cost from the respondents C) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

[3] Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner died in harness during his service on 21.07.2008 and petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 18.09.2008, which was remained pending till filing of this petition. The impugned action of not deciding the application of petitioner is ex facie, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

          [3.1] Ms. Vyas, learned advocate would further submit that subsequent to the application of compassionate appointment, even though policy of the State is changed later in point of time, whereby it decides to grant lump-sum compensation instead of compassionate appointment, then it was incumbent upon the respondent - authority to pay lump- sum compensation immediately. It is submitted that the respondent has not offered the compensation within reasonable time, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation with interest.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE.

[4] Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP has vehemently opposed this petition, contending inter alia, that petitioner is not entitled to get any compassionate appointment. It is submitted that this petition suffers from delay and latches as the application seeking compassionate appointment, was filed in the year 2008 and petitioner approached this Court in the year 2017.

          [4.1] Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would submit that as a matter of fact, on getting requisite information from the District Education Officer concerned, the competent Authority of Education Department of the State has sanctioned the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the family of the deceased employee. It is submitted that a cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- was given to the mother of the petitioner i.e. widow of the deceased employee, who refused to accept it then vide letter dated 19.06.2018 of District Education Officer, Nadiad, it was sent to the school concerned to deposit in her account.

          [4.2] Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would further submit that the reason of the return of the cheque by the family of the deceased employee, is that petitioner is only interested to get job instead of compensation. It is submitted that as per the change in the policy, preciously on 05.07.2011, the State has decided to grant only lump-sum compensation to the family of the deceased employee, instead of compassionate appointment. As per the said policy, all pending application of compassionate appointment would be governed by the said policy.

          [4.3] Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would submit that, as a matter of course, petitioner cannot be allowed to plead for interest, inasmuch as there is no deliberate delay on the part of the respondent- authority not to release the compensation. Since the family of the petitioner has refused to accept the cheque and also returned the amount credited in their account, no interest shall be awarded by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3:-

[5] Mr. Harshadray Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.3 adopts the arguments of the learned AGP and would submit that to give a compassionate appointment or lump-sum compensation is a matter to be decided by the respondent authority and not by the school.

CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS:-

[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after perusing their pleadings and documents, it is clear that father of the petitioner died on 21.07.2008 and he has submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 11.09.2008 but approached this Court by way of this petition only on 17.07.2017.

[7] At this stage, it would be apt to refer to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Canara Bank vs. Ajitkumar G.K. reported in AIR 2025 SC 1232 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290, wherein after referring the previous precedents on the issue germane in the case on hand, case law is discussed and summarized, held thus:

          "JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT [10] The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the family in utter penury, is not of too distant an origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to have originated during the seventies of the last century and gained momentum in the following decades with this Court laying down guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate appointment. The rationale for such appointment has been explained in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1997 8 SCC 85 in the following words:

          "8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."

          [11] Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):

          a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain, 2008 8 SCC 475 ].

          b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 10 SCC 246].

          c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India, 2008 13 SCC 730].

          d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989 4 SCC 468].

          e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, 2009 11 SCC 453].

          f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, 2008 15 SCC 560].

          g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, 2009 13 SCC 600].

          h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, 2011 4 SCC 209].

          i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, 2021 20 SCC 695].

          j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, 2009 13 SCC 112].

          k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138].

          l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore, 2011 13 SCC 131].

          m)The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 6 SCC 162].

          n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, 2012 9 SCC 545].

          o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 7 SCC 192].

          p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank (supra)].

          q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, 2007 2 SCC 481].

          r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh, 1998 5 SCC 452].

          s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, 2004 7 SCC 271].

          t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, 2012 11 SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh, 2006 7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand, 2004 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 7 SCC 265].

          u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].

          v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, 2000 6 SCC 493]

          w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, 2019 3 SCC 653].

          x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, 1994 2 SCC 718].

          y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, 2007 9 SCC 571.

          z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma, 2007 8 SCC 148].

          It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two Judges.

          [30] The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.

          [31] Thus, examination of the financial condition to ascertain whether the respondent and his mother were left in utter financial distress because of the death of the bread earner is not something that can be loosely brushed aside.

          [45] The ratio decidendi of all these decisions have to be read in harmony to achieve the noble goal of giving succour to the dependants of the employee dying-in-harness, who are genuinely in need, and not with the aim of giving them a post for another post. One has to remember in this connection the caution sounded in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute."

          (emphasis supplied)

[8] The concept of granting compassionate appointment is to give immediate succour to the dependent family members of the deceased employee, who died in harness, whereby he put the family in a precarious financial condition. The petitioner has slept over for about 9 years after submitting his application seeking compassionate appointment. This itself shows that family of deceased is not in a precarious condition. No contrary evidence at least to prove this wrong, is produced on record by the petitioner. Since, the family of petitioner (his mother) refused to accept the cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/ offered by the respondent authority in the year 2018, would itself prove that family of deceased employee is not facing any financial distress. Furthermore, it is not in dispute between the parties that when new policy dated 05.07.2011 of the State came into effect, all pending applications of compassionate appointment would be governed by the said policy. It is decided by the State to offer only lump-sum compensation to the dependent family members of the deceased employee, instead of compassionate appointment.

          [8.1] Thus, in view of the aforesaid, so far claim of the petitioner seeking prayer of compassionate appointment is concerned, is not sustainable at law. Accordingly, it is rejected.

[9] As far as alternative prayer seeking lump-sum compensation is concerned, according to my view, the petitioner is not entitled to receive it but of course, his mother would entitle as per the policy of the State. At relevant point of time, same was refused by her.

[10] It may be true that, at the relevant point of time, the District Education Officer, Office of DEO concerned, has forwarded the proposal to grant lump-sum compensation to the dependent family members in the year 2012 or as the case may be. But, from the pleadings, it is equally true that the family of the deceased employee was not ready to accept such lump-sum compensation, then it might not have been paid to widow of the deceased employee. The refusal to accept the cheque offered by DEO concerned by the mother of petitioner is self-sufficient to believe that all throughout, the family was insisting for appointment and never interested to receive compensation.

[11] So far as compensation part is concerned, it has come on record that vide letter dated 19.06.2018, Office of District Education Officer, Nadiad had communicated to respondent No.3 that cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 26.03.2018 was offered to widow - Dipikaben Trivedi but she has not accepted it, however, returned it. So, by way of said communication, it was requested to respondent No.3 - School to deposit the said cheque in the account of legal heirs of deceased employee, as validity of the cheque was going to over. It further appears that pursuant to the said communication, the said cheque was deposited in the account of widow of deceased employee on 30.06.2018. The copy of the Bank statement appears to have been submitted by the petitioner would indicate that the said amount was debited from the account of widow on 02.07.2018 and might be credited to the account of District Education Officer, Nadiad. Ordinarily, unless there is an instruction passed on to the bank by a customer, no bank on its own would transfer any amount into the account of other.

[12] Be that as it may, from the pleadings of the parties and conduct of the family of petitioner, it demonstrates that all-throughout petitioner is only insisting for granting him compassionate appointment and the family of the deceased employee was never willing to accept lump-sum compensation. Keeping the said factors in mind and due to the foregoing reasons, this is not a case where I should exercise my extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondent to pay lump-sum compensation with the interest to the family of the deceased employee.

[13] Furthermore, the petitioner being son of the deceased employee at the time of filing of this petition, was aged about 28 years, according to my view, he would not be entitled to receive the lump-sum compensation. At the same time, without being too technical in the matter, as widow of deceased employee, i.e., mother of petitioner, is not joined in this petition, yet it is hereby directed to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, as the case may be, to again send a cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the widow of the deceased, namely, Dipikaben Trivedi, on or before 15th March, 2026.

[14] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner, except as granted hereinabove in favour of the widow of the deceased employee. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Nevertheless, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall comply the said direction in its true letter and spirit.

[15] Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.