Candidate for compassionate appointment has no right over a particular post: DB

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, held that once a candidate had accepted compassionate appointment and joined on a respective post, he at a later stage, cannot claim that he ought to have been appointed on a higher post.
DB further said that an applicant has no right to claim compassionate appointment in a particular class or group. “It is not for conferring status on family. A candidate for compassionate appointment has no right to any particular post of choice. He can only claim to be considered. The compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an alternate mode of employment. It has to be considered and granted under the relevant rules. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis due to the death of a bread-earner which has left family without any means of livelihood. The basic intent to grant compassionate appointment is that on death of employee, his family is not deprived of means of livelihood. It is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save bereaved family from sudden financial crises due to death of a sole bread-earner,” the Court observed. DB while dismissing a LPA, observed that Apex Court has specifically held that the norms prevailing on date of consideration of the application, should be basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. In present case, a reference to the relevant rules, which were enforced during 2009 to 2013, clearly revealed that entitlement of a candidate to seek appointment on compassionate grounds was only to the post in the lowest rank of the non-gazetted service, subject to the fulfillment of the qualification criteria. Thus, case of writ petitioners do not fall within amended provisions of SRO-43, which were brought into effect vide SRO 177 dated June 20, 2014, the Court observed.