- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner’s mother, an Excise Constable, died when the petitioner was 10 years old. On 2-6-1988, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment. That request was rejected on 10-12-1996 as time-barred. A second application dated 26-12-1996 met the same fate on 21-4-1997. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court; a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 24-8-1999, and a Division Bench affirmed that decision on 10-3-2000. The present Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the Division Bench judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a candidate who was a minor at the time of the employee’s death can claim compassionate appointment many years later, contending that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the candidate’s control.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Relied on Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 Pat LJR 626, where it was held that an applicant’s right cannot be defeated by administrative delay beyond the applicant’s control.
- Invoked Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192, asserting that the Court there ordered creation of supernumerary posts and therefore recognised claims even when no immediate vacancies existed.
- Contended that the learned Single Judge, who previously followed Chandra Bhushan, wrongly held the second application time-barred on 21-4-1997.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 Pat LJR 626 (Pat) | Delay attributable to the authorities should not defeat an applicant’s right to compassionate appointment. | The Supreme Court expressly disagreed with this view, holding that compassionate appointment is meant for immediate relief and cannot be claimed after many years. |
| Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192 | Creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate compassionate appointment claims. | The Court noted that even this decision reiterates that compassionate appointment is for tiding over sudden crisis, thereby supporting the rejection of the petitioner’s delayed claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to normal recruitment rules, designed to provide immediate financial relief to a family left destitute by the employee’s death. At the time of the first application (2-6-1988), the petitioner was a minor and admittedly ineligible. Vacancies cannot be reserved indefinitely until the minor attains majority unless a specific statutory provision so mandates. Because the claim was pursued only after many years, the foundational purpose of compassionate appointment—alleviating sudden hardship—was absent. Consequently, the Court declined to follow the Patna High Court’s reasoning in Chandra Bhushan and found no merit in invoking Pushpendra Kumar to sustain a stale claim.
Holding and Implications
SLP DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rejection of the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment. The immediate implication is that the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds. The decision reiterates, without creating new precedent, that such appointments are strictly for immediate post-death relief and cannot be claimed after a prolonged lapse of time.
Order
1. The petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was working as an Excise Constable. The petitioner made an application on 2-6-1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking compassionate appointment. That was rejected on 10-12-1996 as time-barred. A fresh application was filed on 26-12-1996 and that was also rejected on 21-4-1997 for the same reason. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24-8-1999 and the said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench on 10-3-2000. Against that order that this SLP has been preferred.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 Pat LJR 626 (Pat). Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192, (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.
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 (1998) 5 SCC 192, (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181. 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 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.
4. We, are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Chandra Bhushan case (1997) 1 Pat LJR 626 (Pat).
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Alert