Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ appeal filed by the State (Director General of Police and others) against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2024 in W.P. No. 24310 of 2023. The respondent, K. Mahalakshmi, is the widow of Late V. Kumar, a Head Constable who died on 05.05.2005. She applied for compassionate appointment on 24.07.2005. After a delay of about 15 years, the authorities issued an appointment order on 31.12.2020. However, the respondent could not join due to an accident on 19.02.2021. She then sought appointment for her second son, K. Pravin Kumar, by an application dated 19.02.2021. This application was rejected on 12.05.2023 on the ground that an alternative application can be considered only when the original legal heir expires pending consideration. The writ court directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders on the alternative application and issue an appointment order to the second son. The State appealed, contending that another son of the deceased is already in government service, the appointment order was issued to the wife in 2020, and the alternative application was filed in 2021 without establishing penurious circumstances. The Division Bench held that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right. The scheme permits an alternative application only if the original applicant dies or becomes incapacitated. However, the authorities delayed consideration of the original application for 15 years, and the Rules notified on 08.03.2023 cannot be applied retrospectively. The writ court's direction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Concession - Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a constitutional right; it is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government servant. The scheme must be strictly construed and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (Para 6) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Alternative Application - The scheme permits an alternative application only if the original applicant dies or becomes incapacitated pending consideration. In the present case, the wife declined the appointment after it was issued, and the second son applied in 2021. The Rules notified on 08.03.2023 cannot be applied retrospectively to reject the application. (Paras 3, 6) C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - The authorities delayed consideration of the original application for 15 years. Such delay cannot be held against the applicant. The writ court's direction to consider the alternative application was upheld. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court was correct in directing the authorities to consider the alternative application for compassionate appointment made by the second son of the deceased employee, despite the original appointment order having been issued to the wife and the alternative application being filed beyond the period stipulated in the Rules.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is a concession
- not a right
- Scheme of compassionate appointment must be strictly construed
- Alternative application can be considered if original applicant dies or becomes incapacitated
- Delay in consideration cannot be held against the applicant
- Penurious circumstances must be established at the time of application
