IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4386 of 2009 RUKHMANI DEVI widow of Late RameshwarSingh, resident of village Kachanar, P.O. Kachanar, Via Kopa Bazar, P.S. Ribilganj Disrict Chapra (Saran) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Central Defence Account (A.N.) Office of the C.D.A., Patna-19. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Krishna Mohan. For the Respondents :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, C.G.C. ----- 4 03/08/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and she applied for appointment of her elder son on compassionate ground. The claim was rejected on the ground that even on the basis of money paid to the widow as terminal benefits and the monthly pension as well as G.P.F. assets the family did not suffer from such deprivation which entitled it for compassionate appointment. Another ground was also given for not accepting the claim which was non-availability of any vacancy under 5% quota of total vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the financial condition of the family as assessed by the authorities could not have been accepted as a ground for refusing compassionate appointment because there was no fix parameter for that purpose. Secondly, it was submitted that the claim was rejected in January, 2003 itself whereas if there was no vacancy within the permissible quota, the claim should have been kept pending for a couple of more - 2 - years. Compassionate appointment is given to a family which has lost its bread earner and is in acute need of financial help. Such appointment violates the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but still it has been permitted by the Courts only on account of humanitarian considerations which require urgent help to a destitute family of a deceased employee. In the present case the authorities have applied their mind to the relevant facts and on that basis they did not find the claim of the petitioner fit to be accepted. The death took place in March, 2002 and now after more than seven years, in our view, it would not be proper to direct the authorities to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN