Patna High Court
Vicky KumarversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish a case for compassionate appointment and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Vicky Kumar, sought a compassionate appointment in the National Cooperative Consumer Federation (NCCF) after his father, a peon, died in service in 2011. He filed the application ten years later, in February 2021, and after receiving no response, approached the Patna High Court for a direction to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The Court examined the purpose of compassionate appointments, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which limits such appointments to alleviating immediate financial distress of dependents. Observing the long delay, the Court inferred that the petitioner likely had alternative income and that the delay was a relevant factor. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for a compassionate appointment after a ten-year delay.
- Whether the court can direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated financial destitution warranting compassionate appointment.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- dependants of deceased employee
- public service recruitment
- discretionary jurisdiction
- delay in filing
- financial destitution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1251 of 2022
======================================================
Vicky Kumar Son of Late Shambhu Singh Resident of Village-Ashani, P.O.
Ashani P.S. Udwantnagar District-Bhojpur, Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Home Secretary, Human Resources Department,
Shastri Bhawan, C-Wing, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman, N.C.C.F. of India, N.C.U.I. Complex, 3-Sri Industrial Area
Agust Kranti Marg, Houzkhas, New Delhi-110016.
3. The Managing Director, N.C.C.F. of India, N.C.U.I. Complex, 3-Sri
Industrial Area Agust Kranti Marg, Houzkhas, New Delhi-110016.
4. The General Manager, N.C.C.F. of India, N.C.U.I. Complex, 3-Sri Industrial
Area Agust Kranti Marg, Houzkhas, New Delhi-110016.
5. The office-in-Charge, N.C.C.F. of India, N.C.U.I. Complex, 3-Sri Industrial
Area Agust Kranti Marg, Houzkhas, New Delhi-110016.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one
appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for a direction to the respondents to consider and
appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of
the death of his father who died on harness on 2.1.2011.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father
of the petitioner Late Shambhu Singh who was working as a
Peon in the National Cooperative Consumer Federation (NCCF)
died in harness on 2.1.2011 leaving behind his wife and children
Patna High Court CWJC No.1251 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
including the petitioner herein.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the father of the petitioner being the sole earning member in
the family and the family not having any other source of
income, the petitioner filed an application on 15.2.2021 for
appointment on compassionate ground. Not having received any
response thereto, the petitioner got a legal notice sent on
15.11.2021. Still not having got any appointment nor any
response to his application or notice, the instant application has
been filed praying for a direction to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground.
5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents to
oppose the instant application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the contents of the petition, it transpires that the
father of the petitioner was working on the post of Peon in the
NCCF when he died in harness on 2.1.2011 leaving behind the
petitioner ie his son as also other members of the family. The
petitioner came to file an application for his appointment on
compassionate ground 10 years after the death of his father on
15.2.2021 and thereafter not having been appointed, the writ
application has been filed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1251 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
7. It may be observed here that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of
Haryana and others; (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held that the object
of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family
of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis
and it is not the alternative mode of providing employment.
Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced herein below for
ready reference:
“As a rule, appointments in the public services should
be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to
follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications
laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this
general rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out in the
interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies.
One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. In such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking
into consideration the fact that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1251 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of
such family a post much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in
harness does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied,
that but for the provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered
to the eligible member of the family. The posts in
Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual
and manual categories and hence they alone can be
offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to
help it get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an
exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is
not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to
such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts
has a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts
are expected or required to be given by the public
authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in
this connection that as against the destitute family of
the deceased there are millions of other families which
are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the
rule made in favour of the family of the deceased
employee is in consideration of the services rendered by
him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in
the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the
erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”
8. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the father of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1251 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
the petitioner having died in the year 2011 and the very
application for appointment on compassionate ground having
been filed 10 years later, it can be reasonably deduced that the
petitioner had some alternative source of income and as such the
delay in filing his application for compassionate appointment.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court already having held
that this mode of appointment is not an alternative source to
provide employment and only to assist the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, in
the opinion of the Court, the delay in filing the very first
application would be relevant consideration in exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction by this Court.
10. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has not
made out any case for intervention by this Court for a direction
to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground.
11. The Court finds no merit in the instant application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U
Checking your session…