Son’s Compassionate-Job Application Must Be Considered on Merits After Father’s Dismissal Was Set Aside: Patna HC

The appellant sought compassionate appointment following his father’s death in service on 11 July 2015. His father had been dismissed on 26 May 2014, but the dismissal order was set aside and the disciplinary proceeding ultimately declared abated; the writ court directed that he be treated as never dismissed and that consequential benefits be paid to his heirs.

The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 14 July 2022. The District Magistrate rejected the application on 9 February 2023, reasoning that it had been made after expiry of the applicable five-year period.

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, prompting this appeal.

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to provide relief to a deceased employee’s family in financial distress and is not a regular mode of appointment.

On the facts of this case, the Court treated the right to apply as accruing when the order of 12 March 2021 restored the deceased employee’s service status and held that the competent authority was required to consider the appellant’s application on its merits.

The Court relied on the earlier order declaring that the deceased employee was to be treated as never dismissed and was therefore in service when he died. Since the appellant could not claim compassionate appointment while his father stood dismissed, the Court accepted that the relevant cause of action arose upon restoration of service status on 12 March 2021.

The application filed on 14 July 2022 was therefore to be considered on its merits. The State’s contention that the family had managed to support itself since 2015 did not justify refusing consideration at the threshold; the Court expressly confined itself to deciding the appellant’s right to seek consideration, not whether appointment should ultimately be granted.

The District Magistrate, Begusarai, was directed to decide the appellant’s application on its merits within six weeks; the appellant was directed to communicate a web copy of the order to the District Magistrate.