SUKHBIRI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased died over a decade ago in 1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that compassionate appointment should be granted in close proximity to the death since it is intended to tide a family over a sudden death. The deceased was over 50 years old when he died. The family has, therefore, received benefit of employment which is not available to the vast majority of Indian citizens. The family is also receiving family pension in addition to gratuity and insurances etc. I do not find this to be a case which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) There is also a prayer for compassionate appointment. The question of compassionate appointment has been considered in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpai Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 1994 (4) SCC 138. The Apex Court has observed that-

(3.) I have already held in the cases of Vishal Redhu Vs. Union of India and another inW.P. No. 1278/2004 decided on 27.1.2005, Kamla Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP No. 1749/2005 decided on 2.2.2005, Tanveer Hasan Vs. Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi in W.P. No. 2159/2002 decided on 3.2.2005, Amit Kumar Vs. N.D.M.C. in W.P. 13687/2004 decided on 7.2.2005 and Nandan Singh & Anr. Vs. I.I.P.A. in W.P. 5260/2001 decided on 18.2.2005 that compassionate appointment runs contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. I have considered this question in detail in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shir Vir Mohd., 94 (2001)DLT 746, which had been dismissed by me.