SOBIA MUJIB v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

4. The father of the the Market Committee, Ahmedgarh had unfortunately expired on 22.03.2012. The brother of the

appointed as Peon in the Market Committee on 09.04.2013. He had absented from duty on several occasions and after issuanc cause-notices, he was declared absent from duty with effect from 01.04.2014. Subsequently, charge

departmental inquiry, his services were terminated on 30.11.2016. The brother of the

Authority which was allowed and matter was remanded to the Administrator and the Administrator had passed an order on 21.05.2018 whereby the services of brother of the

from 01.04.2014

brother had sought appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by the District Mandi Officer on 28.07.2022 instructions dated 21.11.2002.

hereunder:-

"

is informed that upon the death of Shri Muzib Rehman Khan, Mandi Supervisor, Office of Market Committee, Ahmedgarh, the Market Committee, Ahmedgarh has already given compassionate appointment to his son/your elder brother Shri Kasif Ali Khan. No.11/105/98/4PP/II/14420, dated 21.11.2002 issued by Punjab Government, personnel Department (Personnel Policy Branch) "An appointment made on compassiona cannot be transferred to any other person and any request for the same on consideration of compassion should invariably be rejected."

by the Punjab Government, your application for compassio appointment in place of your elder brother Shri Kasif Ali Khan is not liable to be considered. Hence, the application filed by you is being consigned to record.

(O&M)

appellant who was working as Super

appellant, namely,

-sheet was issued and after holding

appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate appellant

. The appellant after the termination of the services of her The order dated 28.07.2002

Regarding the aforementioned subject/reference, it As per para No.15(b) of letter

In accordance with the aforesaid instructions issued Sd/

Page 2 of 4

visor in

Kasif Khan was

e of several show-

were terminated with effect

by relying on

is reproduced

-II

te grounds

nate

- District Mandi Officer,

Sangrur."

2

5. The Sing had been given compassionate appointment and the appointment is not transferrable to any other family member

writ petition.

6. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule

the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A reference can be made to the judgment

Debabrata Tiwari and others,

the Supreme Court had reiterated

Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana

"Policy of Compassionate Appointment: The Rationale:

7.

for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain

employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death

confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succo

provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

ii

(1994)

granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who is el

death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is

but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able (O&M)

le Bench after noticing

subsequently had dismissed the

of making appoint

of the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal 2023 AIR Supreme Court 1467

the law laid down in

' 1994 (4) SCC 138

The majesty of death is that it

for his family? The State's obligation in this regard, r to such a family. Support for such a

xxx

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana,

4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of igible for such employment. That mere Page 3 of 4

that brother of the appellant

ments in conformity with

Vs.

wherein

'Umesh Kumar

and observed as under:-

is a great leveler

. Further, a deceased xxx

only if it is satisfied that,

3

to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court

compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of t sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.

7. As the brother of the compassionate appointment, it is not open to the appointment on compassionate grounds after termination of his brother's services. The object is only to tide

engulfs the family o

8. We do not f counsel for the appellant that brother of the psychotic illness

medical prescription from

member has availed the benefit

cannot be grant

member had been terminated.

9. Consequently, we do Single Judge which would warrant interference in letters patent appeal.

10. Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed December 10

vandana

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Whether reportable

(O&M)

further clarifi

"

appellant over the immediate n the death of the sole breadwinner. ind any merit in the contention as no supporting document has been annexed except private doctor. In any

of compassionate appointment

ed to another family member after the service not find any illegality in the order of the

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

, 2024

Yes/No : Yes/No Page 4 of 4 ed in the said case that he death of the

had been granted

appellant to seek financial crisis which of the learned

appellant was suffering from a

event, once a family , the same

of that family

accordingly.

)

4