Priya Gour
Published on: 13th August 2022 at 17:41 IST
The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy held that the post of the deceased employee must be referred to while providing suitable employment under the compassionate appointment. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words “suitable employment.”
The son of a deceased employee, being his dependent, was offered the post of sweeper as a compassionate appointment. He was a graduate with computer literacy and so rejected this offer of a post as a sweeper(held by his father).
Subsequently, he filed a representation to be appointed to the post of Gram Panchayat Officer (cadre of Class-III post). However, his representation was rejected. Lately, he approached the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition as well, after which he moved before the apex court.
Senior Advocate for the appellant, Arijit Prasad, submitted that the question of suitability while providing compassionate appointment should not be decided with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.
Advocate Ruchira Goel, counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh government, defended that dependents cannot claim appointment to a class III post if the deceased employee was working in a class-IV cadre.
The bench held that in the above matter, there was no link between the death of the employee and the late consideration by the government for appointment. The death of the employee took place on 23.11.2016. As per the case State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. versus Premlata (2022), the court made a reference and quoted:
“The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata (supra). “
“In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words “suitable employment” under Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words “suitable employment.”
The bench made an interpretation of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It opines that the superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine “suitable employment.”
The bench considered the appellant’s request to consider the appellant’s case for appointment as a sweeper. and said that this was his statutory right. However, claiming a class III post cannot be considered valid.
“It may be true that there were rounds of litigation, but as we have already noticed, bearing in mind the date of the death of the employee, the claim of the appellant may not be said to be afflicted with such delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of relief of the appellant’s being appointed as a sweeper, a right which is given under the statutory Rule.”
The bench, thus, said that the post held by the deceased must be considered and, thereby, partially allowed the petition.