On December 2, 1999, Mr Singh, a class-4 employee, was kidnapped. Subsequently, his wife lodged an FIR and once the investigation was done, a charge-sheet was submitted. Since he was never found and seven years had passed, he was presumed dead and a death certificate was issued accordingly.
However, around 10 years later, on July 13, 2009, the Rajpur Police Station suggested that she apply for a compassionate appointment for her late husband's position, which she did. Unfortunately, the application was rejected.
Feeling wronged, she filed a case in 2012 and a single bench of the high court asked the authorities to reconsider her case. But , the authorities again rejected her compassionate appointment request. Feeling aggrieved, she and her son filed a court case which was dismissed on September 2, 2024. She then filed an appeal before a double bench of the high court.
The Patna High Court's double bench said that compassionate appointment is meant for immediate financial relief to a family and cannot be claimed a very long time after the said employee (her husband) went missing.
His son argued before the Patna High Court that since his father had remained missing and untraceable for more than seven years, and is only now presumed dead and accordingly a death certificate was also issued. On this ground, he urged the court to consider his appeal for compassionate appointment.
The Bihar Government opposed his contentions and argued before the high court that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is given to provide an immediate relief. It was further contended that the claim, raised after a long lapse of time, defeats the very object of the scheme, as reported by LiveLaw.
The high court ruled that on reviewing the materials available on record, it is apparent that his father became traceless in 1999 and a considerable period of time has since elapsed.
The high court said that such an inordinate lapse of time assumes decisive significance in the context of compassionate appointment, which is conceived not as a mode of public employment, but as a tailored exception intended to meet an immediate and emergent financial exigency arising on account of the loss of the bread earner.
In this backdrop, the high court said that it is pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari , wherein it was authoritatively held that where there is a prolonged delay, whether attributable to the applicant or the authorities, the foundational element of immediacy stands significantly diminished and loses its force.
The Patna High Court said that in view of the settled legal position and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is reasonable to presume that over such an extended period, the family of the deceased has been able to sustain itself, and therefore, the original financial crisis which justified compassionate appointment may no longer subsist.
Also read: SC to examine whether married daughter's son can claim compassionate employment benefits
The high court said that it has been categorically emphasized that entertaining such claims after a considerable lapse of time would be of no avail and would defeat the very object of the scheme.
The high court also said that the Supreme Court has cautioned courts that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance or succession, nor can it be claimed as a vested right, but must remain strictly confined to its limited purpose of alleviating immediate financial distress. Any deviation from this principle, particularly by entertaining stale claims, would run contrary to the constitutional mandate governing public employment.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed the son and mother's appeal for compassionate appointment.
.png?w=600)
