Shocked over way compassionate appointments are dealt with: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 2
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed surprise and shock over the manner in which the cases of compassionate appointments are being dealt with. A Bench of the court made it clear that the unmarried daughter of an employee who died during his service could not be expected to remain single until she was offered such an appointment.
The assertion by Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma came in a case where a daughter’s initial compassionate appointment plea was rejected after remaining pending for a decade. Her subsequent plea was again rejected on the ground that she was now ineligible in terms of government instructions, “which did not allow a married woman to be eligible for compassionate appointment”.
The observation
Question arises as to whether an unmarried daughter should remain unmarried for the time till she is offered appointment. Such cannot be the reasons or intention of the rule-making authority. —High Court Bench
Justice Sharma observed that the petitioner’s mother had submitted an application in November 2001 for her appointment. Her case was initially considered for constable’s post, but was denied appointment on the ground of not having the requisite height. The petitioner then expressed her willingness for appointment on clerk’s post. This application was also rejected in November 2011 on the ground that she did not possess the required qualifications.
Justice Sharma said that it was apparent that the petitioner was unmarried, and a dependant, at the time of submitting the application for appointment as clerk. “The question arises as to whether an unmarried daughter should remain unmarried for the time till she is offered appointment. Such cannot be the reasons or intention of the rule making authority”.
Justice Sharma also observed that there was an inordinate delay in considering her application by the respondents and it was wrongfully rejected without adverting to the rules existing at the time of submitting the application. “Keeping an application pending for years together reflects the attitude of the appointing authority. It appears that the application was kept pending for extraneous purposes and considerations. Such action of the respondents is deprecated by this Court,” Justice Sharma said.
Justice Sharma directed the respondents to consider her case forthwith. The appointment was also directed to relate back to the period she submitted her application for the clerk’s post in February 2002. But the benefit for the intervening period was directed to be purely notional.
