SATYA DEVI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 266 of 2013 dated 10th February, 2014, whereby, the prayer of the appellant for getting compassionate appointment was not accepted because of long time gap between the date of death of husband of the appellant, who expired on 6th July, 1999 and the writ petition was preferred in June 2013. On this ground alone that the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:

(3.) IT is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class II posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B. Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependant nor the post which he held is relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment: