Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

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