IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18400 of 2009 RAUSHAN KUMAR Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. ----------- 02 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The claim in the writ application is for compassionate appointment on account of death of the father of the petitioner in harness as J.T.O., fault control, E.T.R., on 4.1.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly acknowledges that the application for compassionate appointment has been submitted on 17.9.2003 after the petitioner attained majority. Learned counsel for the respondent Nigam, submits that the impugned order of rejection dated 21.11.2008 is reasoned and speaking, that after overall assessment, the family was not destitute living in penury to be entitled for consideration to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment has been considered as an exception to the normal mode of recruitment on Government post or Semi-Government post by open advertisement and competitive selection. A claim for compassionate appointment is not an inheritable right to be kept reserved for the heirs of the deceased to enable them to attain majority and then seek such appointment on grounds 2 of descent. The fact that the petitioner had resources as a minor to subsist for more than a reasonable period of time is itself evidence that he was not in the dire need of compassionate appointment. This conclusion of the Court is further fortified by the reasons mentioned in the impugned order that assessed on the official yardsticks as discussed in the impugned order itself, the family was not destitute or in penury to be considered for compassionate appointment as it had adequate resources. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order has not been assailed or denied in the writ petition. In 2000 (7) SCC 192 (SANJAY KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS), the petitioner was a minor when his mother died in service. On attaining majority years later he made an application for compassionate appointment which was rejected as time barred. Supreme Court held as follows as Paragraph-3 :- “3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education V. Pushpendra kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was 3 not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” That other sources of income available was a relevant consideration to deny compassionate appointment has been approved by the Supreme Court in paragraph-12 of the judgment reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778 (STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SOMVIR SINGH). Supreme Court held as follows as paragraph-12:- “12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land.” There is no merit in this application, it is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)