Compassionate Appointment VI

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3 PC 221; Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85; State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797; State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743; I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384; State Bank of India v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653; Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836.

A provision for compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. A compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

The sense of immediacy has been lost in present case.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, [Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022].

_____

In present case, as is apparent from record, Tinku attained majority 11 years after an unfortunate death of his Father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by State.

– Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, Tinku v. State of Haryana, [Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024].

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.