IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2651 of 2009 Most.Rajkalia Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment for her son-in-law. The deceased died in harness on 15.6.2005. An application for compassionate appointment of the son-in-law was made on 29.7.2005. It evoked no response leading to the institution of the writ application. Relying on a Government instruction dated6.11.1991 it is submitted that it stipulates consideration for appointment of the son, brother or any other member of the family. The son-in-law was a member of the family and therefore he was required to be considered. Counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that a son-in-law does not fall within the definition of ‘family’. Appointment on compassionate ground has been considered an exception to the normal mode of 2 appointment prescribed by Article 14 of the Constitution mandating open advertisement and competitive merit selection. However, the Courts have countenanced appointment on compassionate grounds to a limited extent for over coming the penury caused to the family of the deceased by sudden death of the bread earner. But the Courts have leaned towards a strict interpretation of the policy for compassionate appointment. The consistent judicial view has been that sympathy or a lenient approach contrary to the policy for compassionate appointment cannot be taken. Every time that a compassionate appointment is made, employment in Government being a national wealth, it is denied to another citizen as he is shut out from consideration totally. Every appointment on compassionate ground violates Article 14 of the Constitution when it negates adequate opportunity clause and Article 15 of the Constitution when again it violates a persons fundamental right only because he did not have the descent of a deceased. The principles with regard to compassionate appointment have been codified as noticed in (2011)4 SCC 209 (Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India) at Paragraph-20 as follows:- “20. Thus, while considering a claim for 3 employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the employee was deceased on 15.6.2005. The family has continued to survive even thereafter and the writ application has been filed as late as February, 2009. No further discussion is required that the family does have adequate sources of livelihood and that compassionate appointment was not a compelling 4 necessity. There is no pleading in the writ application of what persuasive measure were taken by the petitioner for these long four years and why as the wife of the deceased she did not stake her own claim for appointment or for her other unmarried daughter. Furthermore the writ petition states that the deceased was to superannuate in 3 to 4 years. Death is a sudden event. Superannuation is a forgone conclusion. If the deceased was to superannuate in 3 to 4 years, obviously he must have thought of the same and started planning his affairs accordingly. The petitioner as the wife of the deceased, was also well aware of the sudden drop in income that would come after superannuation within a few years. Therefore it cannot be classified as a case of sudden death visiting the family with penury overnight when otherwise the deceased had a long service career. In (1999) 7 SCC 672 (W.B. SEB v. Samir K. Sarkar) considering death within two years of superannuation declining compassionate appointment it was held at Paragraph 4 as follows:- “4….On the admitted position that the death of the father of the respondent occurred on 29-11-1996 which is within two years preceding the date of superannuation, the respondent will not be entitled to a compassionate appointment ………” 5 The Court cannot give a extended meaning to the words ‘family’ in the Indian context to include a son-in-law for compassionate appointment. The moment his daughter got married she went out of the family of the deceased and became member of the family of another where her husband was born. The husband by reason of this marriage did not stand adopted as a member of the family of the deceased. He continues to be a member of the family of his own descent. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)