#compassionateappointment

The chilling case of 23-year-old Ayushi Sharma from Jaipur—who orchestrated her own mother's murder just to secure her late father’s compassionate appointment—exposes a dark, systemic crisis. While the Supreme Court (State of West Bengal vs. Devabrata Tiwari, 2023) has clearly ruled that these jobs are immediate financial relief, not an "ancestral inheritance," grassroots reality is bloody. Data shows a staggering 28% spike in suspicious 'accidental deaths' in public sectors like Railways, Police and Education during an employee's final 24 months of service. Shockingly, local police close 82% of these cases superficially as standard mishaps. We are witnessing the rise of a dangerous "Bloodline Bureaucracy," where greedy dependents treat an aging parent's life as a ticking clock for guaranteed employment…..

दिल्ली सरकार ने एक ऐतिहासिक निर्णय लेते हुए 1984 के सिख विरोधी दंगों में मारे गए पीड़ितों के आश्रितों को रोजगार प्रदान करने की नई नीति को मंजूरी दी है। मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता की अध्यक्षता में हुई कैबिनेट बैठक में यह फैसला लिया गया, जिससे उन परिवारों को राहत मिलेगी जो चार दशकों से न्याय और आर्थिक पुनर्वास की प्रतीक्षा कर रहे थे। लंबे समय से लंबित मामलों का निपटारा करेगी नई नीति कैबिनेट में लिए गए…

Kumari Nisha v. State of UP & 3 Others

W.P. No. 16068/2023

Before High Court of Allahabad

Writ Petition was allowed and order of the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur was set aside by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manjive Shukla J on 08.02.2024.

The matter was remanded back to the DBEO to pass fresh order within 2 months.

Background

Petitioner Nisha has challenged the order dt. 26.12.2022 of District Basic Education Officer (DBEO), Gorakhpur, where by her application for compassionate appointment was rejected.

Facts

The father of the petitioner, a Head Master at Primary School Manikpur, Gorakhpur died in harness on 07.12.2019 leaving behind widow, 2 unmarried son and 2 unmarried daughters.

Petitioner Nisha is permanently disabled and completely dependent on the earnings of her father.

Petitioner’s elder brother Mr. Deepak Kumar is a government servant in the PAC of U.P. and is living with his family at his place of posting at Jaunpur.

Petitioner submitted an application along with the NOC of her elder brother stating that he has no objection if petitioner is given appointment in lieu of death of his father.

The DBEO rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground since eldest son of the deceased is working and is in the service of State Government therefore there is no stress with the family.

Moreso, when the eldest son of the deceased is employed with the Ste Government, the compassionate appointment to the other member of the family is not permissible under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Submission of the Counsel of the petitioner

The eldest son of the deceased teacher categorically submitted before DBEO on Affidavit that he is separately residing from his parents.

There is no material available with the DBEO to infer that the petitioner’s brother is providing sufficient financial support to the family of his late father.

5th Amendment to UP Pension Rules 1974 was made in 1999 as legislature was aware in case the eldest son of the deceased is in state government employment, the earning of the government servant would be utilized for his family alone and may not be available for the sustenance of the remaining family of the deceased government servant.

Therefore, compassionate appointment to other siblings can’t be denied.

Exception: where surviving spouse of deceased government servant is in government job, compassionate appointment shall not be offered to any other family member of the deceased government servant

Wherefore order dt. 26.12.22 can’t sustain in the eyes of law.

Submission of the Counsel of the State

On the date of death of the deceased teacher the eldest son was in government job and the family was not in stress therefore DBEO has rightly rejected the application.

Compassionate Appointment can’t be claimed as a matter of right.

Observation of the Court

Petitioner’s brother has given an affidavit, categorically stating that though he is in government job but is residing separately from his parents.

Therefore, unless there was some material before the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, he could not have recorded a finding that since petitioner’s brother is in government job, his earnings are sufficient for sustenance of surviving family of the deceased teacher.

Accordingly, order dated 26.12.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Seema Bhatnagar

Compassionate appointments are meant to ease the financial burden of losing a loved one, not to reward the dependent with a higher post.

Arpit Shukla v. State of UP & 4 Others

W.P. 193444/2023

Before Allahabad High Court

Disposed of on

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Tewari J

Facts

Father of petitioner was working as Class-IV employee at Nagar Palika Parishad, Faridpur, Bareilly. During the course of service, father of petitioner died on 31.7.2022.

After his death, petitioner submitted an application for appointment as Class-III employee on compassionate ground, which was rejected.

Petitioner has filed an application before the District Magistrate upon which ADM has sought instruction from the respondent DM.

In the letter dt. 26.09.23, it was mentioned that no post is vacant for Class-III employee.

Further in light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, dependent of deceased has no right to claim particular position or place.

It is the discretion of appointing authority to pass appropriate order warranted in the facts and circumstance of the case.

Letter dated 26.9.2023 was not communicated to the petitioner, but coming to know that his claim has been rejected, he has challenged the same by filing present petition.

Petitioner relied on Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and submitted that petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post for which he is having qualification.

Petitioner relied on the case of Smt. Premlata vs. State of U.P. and others 2nd Appeal Defective 620/2018 & Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468

Submission of the Counsel for the State

In the light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, petitioner has no right to claim particular post.

Apex Court has reversed the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P. and others with specific finding that mere qualification cannot be a ground for appointment on higher post than the post held by the deceased employee.

Under such facts and interpretation made by Apex Court, petitioner is not entitled for appointment on Class-III post on compassionate ground.

Observation of the Court

The post of Class IV which was available in the light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, was offered to the petitioner, which was refused by petitioner only on the ground that he is having higher qualification.

Law of land is that legal heir cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee.

Therefore, in light of interpretation of Rule 5 of Rules 1974 made by the Apex Court as well as this Court, petitioner is not entitled for the post of Class-III on compassionate ground.

Seema Bhatnagar

Free stylers–reasons for them have no meaning:

My Diary: I received a telephone call the other day from one of the readers of this blog asking me as to what has happened in regard to – Pension issues in State Bank of India and Compassionate appointments in Banking industry I explained to him in detail as to why there is no requisite outcome in regard to both the problems and that what are the reasons of delay. Initially he was polite and soft…