Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

Kanuram Naskar Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. - (High Court of Calcutta) (25 Jul 2019)

Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted, if criterion for showing compassion is missing

MANU/WB/1797/2019

Service

The prayer of the Petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground has been rejected by a communication. The same is impugned in the instant writ petition. The grounds for rejection of the petitioner's prayer have been specifically mentioned in the order of rejection. It was mentioned that (i) due to the increasing trend of huge revenue loss year over year because of decreasing consumption of coal gas by the consumers; (ii) increasing trend of expenditure for running the establishment; and (iii) gradual decrease of area of operation because of various reasons and all such factors contributing to non-requirement of additional manpower in Group-C and D categories. The Respondent Corporation has taken a decision that there was no scope to consider the prayer of the petitioner.

The order rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment appears to be a perfectly reasoned one. The Corporation has assessed the requirement of man power, running expenditure etc. and arrived at a specific finding that there was no requirement of additional staff. In the absence of any cogent ground made out in the writ petition to assail the said findings of facts the reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner cannot be faulted.

That apart, the order was passed on 16th July, 2015 and the Petitioner has challenged the same in the year 2019. No reason whatsoever has been mentioned in the writ petition for filing the writ petition at such a belated stage.

Prayer for appointment on compassionate ground is considered on urgent basis as the same is meant to tide over the sudden crisis faced by the family of an employee on the untimely death of the bread earner. In the instant case, the employee concerned expired in the year 2007. In the year 2019, there is hardly any scope or reason to show compassion. The immediate crisis which was faced by the petitioner in the year 2007 no longer subsists in the year 2019.

It is settled law that, appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and the same is not a mode a regular employment. It is a concession and compassion that is shown to the family of the employee who died in harness. The criterion for showing compassion is palpably missing in the instant case. No relief can be granted to the Petitioner in the instant case.

Tags : COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT   REJECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved