CLAIMING OF HIGHER POST ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Ordinarily compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and once appointment on compassionate appointment is done, all claims for such appointment loses its life. Further seeking higher post on compassionate appointment is not possible.

In ‘Purusotham Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar and others’ – 2013-IV-LLJ-232 (Pat) when the father of the petitioner had died on 12.01.2001, the petitioner was appointed on a Class IV post of 25.06.2001. Since the petitioner had a qualification for Class III post and there were some more comparable cases alike the petitioners, he had moved the authority for being appointed afresh on compassionate ground on class III post.   He moved the High Court which dismissed the petition. The Division Bench vide their order dated 05.07.2011 directed the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner for his appointment on Class III post. Vide their order dated 30.08.2011 again rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondents not only considered the scheme of compassionate appointment prevalent in the Government of Bihar vide circular dated 5.11.1991 but also the issue relating to the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post, in issuing the order. Being continued for a period of more than 10 years it would not be possible to re-open the compassionate appointment.

In the opinion of the Court the petitioner cannot claim any right to be appointed against a Class III post. When the father of the petitioner had died the respondents on the basis of the available post had immediately appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground by giving a Class IV post. The petitioner without demur or protest had accepted such appointment and in fact had raised the issue only by filing a writ application in the year 2008, after seven years of his continuance on a class IV post.                 

The Court has no iota of doubt that full consideration has been given by the Collector of the District. It is to be noted that initially when the petitioner’s appointment was under consideration in the year 2001 and in fact he got appointed on compassionate ground in less than six months of the recommendations of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for the appointment on compassionate ground for a class IV post. The petitioner has accepted the said post without any protect and therefore in the light of the policy decision of the Government dated 5.10.1991 which itself lays down that once a person is appointed on compassionate ground on any post, he cannot be allowed to raise any further claim for higher posts. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is a matter of policy and if the policy itself lays down for no further consideration after being given one post, the same cannot be claimed by the person already appointed and continuing in service as a matter of right.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘State of Rajasthan V. Umrao Sing’ – 1994 (9) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein it was held that there is no such concept of ‘endless compassion’ and the claim of compassionate appointment gets extinguished once one of the available post is offered by the employee and is accepted by the employee.

The High Court further held that it has to be kept in mind that the decision taken in the year 2001 by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for appointment of the petitioner on a class IV post could not have been re-opened after 10 years because the petitioner was not competing on merit.   It was the case of the availability of the post which was offered at the point of time to the petitioner and which he had also happily accepted.   Thus, after a period of more than 12 years of continuation of the petitioner in Class IV post, this court is not inclined to hold that the initial appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in the year 2001 was made on any irrelevant consideration.   The example cited by the petitioner of other persons are not comparable and in any event, each case of compassionate appointment arising at a particular point of time cannot be re-opened only because the policy subsequently changed. The case of the petitioner has to be considered as on 12.1.2001 when the father has died and on that day, his appointment on Class IV post cannot be faulted either on fact or law.   The Court dismissed the petition.