In a land mark judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India, it has categorically held that appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The Supreme Court has held that the decision whether to consider a person for appointment on compassionate ground depends upon the finacial condition of the family of the deceased employee.
A Bench of Justice P.P.Naolekar and Justice L.N.Panta passed the above order while quashing an Andhrapradesh High Court order on the appointment of a widow.Sarvannissa Begum,on compassionate grounds after her husband died while working with the State Road Transport Corporation.
The Supreme court Bench observed , ‘mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle the family to such source of livlihood.The government or the public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased.’ recalling the earlier observation in the Umesh Kumar Nagpal case in 1994.
In the case of the above mentioned Begum, she has opted for a monetary compensation of Rs 1 lakh instead of appointment on compassionate ground.Later she requested that her monetary benefit be taken aback and give her appointment on compassionate ground.Her request was rejected by the Corporation.
On a writ petition filed by her a single judge held that she be appointed under the ‘bread winner scheme’which was challenged before a division bench by the corporation.The division modified the order that Begum be appointed as either as a conductor or an attender.Then the Corporation preferred an appeal in the apex court.
Allowing the appeal, the apex court has said that time and again it has held that compassionate appointment will be given to the dependant of the deceased, who died in harness, only to get over the financial difficulties due to the death of the bread-earner.In the present case, the deceased employees’ wife Begum had been given Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation along with other monetary benefits.
Thus, as a matter of right she is not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment and that too when it had been brought to the notice of the court that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have been accomodated.
Leave Your Comments