In a significant judgment that may have ramifications for all people seeking employment on compassionate grounds, the Bombay high court has held that compassionate appointment is not the right of the claimant.
A Nagpur division bench of the HC rejected two requests for employment on compassionate grounds made by the dependents of deceased employees.
The HC made it clear that such appointments should only be made when there is a sudden crisis occurring in the family, following the death of the breadwinner of the family, while in service. According to the HC, if such a crisis does not exist, employment on compassionate ground is not warranted.
Division bench of Justice S.A. Bobade and Justice P.D. Kode set aside an order passed by the joint director, higher education, Nagpur dated March 15, 2007, directing the Shikshan Prasarak Madal’s Karmaveer Mahavidyalaya to hire Vanita, the widow of Vilas Vairagadwar, who committed suicide in 1999.
The court said that the time span between the death and the joint director’s order was difficult to accept as it would not have met the criteria of the “sudden crisis” that occurred in the family at the time of Vairagadwar’s death.
In another case the HC rejected a petition by Satish Balkhande, whose father died while in service of the railways in 1977 as a watchman. The petitioner staked a claim for employment in 1999 as he was only five years of age at the time of death of his father. It was argued that his mother had made an application for a job in 1977 and her request was accepted by the railways in 1979, but she was not given employment, till 1992. Hence, she had told the railways that the claim should be passed on to her son, said the petitioner.
In both the cases, the HC referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey in which the apex court held that the very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased.