Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently the bench of Justice J J Munir held that "If on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule”.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors.

What was the Background of Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors. Case?

• The petitioner's father, Nasir Ahmad, was an employee of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (the Corporation) who died in harness.
• The petitioner claimed to be divorced from her husband Nisar Ahmad through a Talaqnama.
• The petitioner sought compassionate appointment and family pension from the Corporation as the legal heir of her deceased father.
• The Corporation sought a succession certificate from her, which she obtained from the District Court declaring her entitled to her father's retiral dues.
• However, the petitioner filed the petition alleging that though she was paid her father's retiral dues and pension for some period in 2019-20 initially, it was stopped by the corporation without any justifiable reason.
  • She sought a direction for grant of compassionate appointment to herself from the Corporation, as the legal heir of her deceased father.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court held that a divorced daughters must show her dependence on the deceased employee at the time of his death to get compassionate appointment.
• Hence, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish:
  • Her dependence on the deceased employee at the time of his death
  • Authenticity of the Talaqnama to prove her divorce
  • Full particulars about the deceased's other dependents whom she claimed to support
• On family pension, the Court held that the petitioner did not point out any statutory rule entitling her to receive family pension for her father's services.
  • The petition was dismissed.

What are the Landmark Cases on Compassionate Appointment?

• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another (2016)
  • Division bench of Allahabad High Court struck down the word 'unmarried' qualifying 'daughter' in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• State of U.P. and another v. Madhavi Mishra and others (2021):
  • Allahabad High Court held that a married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right.
• Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and another v. V. Somyashree, (2021):
  • Supreme Court summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-
    • that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
    • that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
    • the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
    • appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
    • the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
• The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022):
  • In this case SC observed that, a married daughter of the deceased employee, cannot be considered dependent on her deceased mother, especially after a significant period of time had passed since the death of the employee.