- This order came because of an instant appeal vis-à-vis compassionate appointment.
- It was held in the case of Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a bonanza. It is not a disbursement of a gift or a sympathy aid. It is to provide a minimum relief in case of the death of a sole bread earner so that the family can rise from extreme financial crisis.
- The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once an individual has accepted the compassionate post they cannot claim for a higher post.
- In fact a candidate cannot even opt for a compassionate appointment, it is not for a conferring status or family.
- Mere death of a family member doesn’t entitle the family to this source of livelihood. The public authority will examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it satisfies the conditions will the post be granted.
- In this case the appellants were given a compassionate appointment as a technician-lll in the power development in Jammu.
- Thereafter in 2015 they filed a writ petition that they should have been given a higher post like the junior engineers did.
- This petition was dismissed based on lack of merit and thus rose an appeal.
- The High Court delved into the meaning of compassionate appointment. It observed that compassionate appointment Is not an alternative form of employment. It is not a vested right that someone can claim.
- It is granted under relevant conditions as an aid to the individual and its family.
- One cannot choose a post. When accepted, the post is considered. He has no right for a particular post even if it is relevant to the conferring status or the family.
- It is meant to provide a minimum relief for livelihood to meet the needs of immediate hardship.
- The case referred by the HC was of Union of India v. Shashank Goswamiand Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree. It was held that the claim can be accepted when the applicant was dependent on the deceased bread earner making it an exception to the general rule.
- Looking at the facts of the case the High Court stated that was the purpose of the appointment was to put the candidates at the lowest rank only to fulfil the criteria of basic aid.
- Hence the appeal was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
