MINISTER OF STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS` WELFARE IN THE MINISTRY OF
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (SMT. VASUNDHARA RAJE)
(a) : Under the existing scheme, the power to make
compassionate appointments has been decentralised and vests in
respective Ministry/Department/Head of Department.As such,
information in this regard is not centrally collected/maintained.
(b) & (c) : Appointment on compassionate grounds depends,
among other things, on the availabilty of a vacancy for that
purpose. The existing scheme provides for consideration of
applications received in the previous month during the second
week of every month and it envisages grant of compassionate
appointment within a year in really deserving cases if vacancy
meant for such appointment is available within the prescribed
ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies in Group `C` and
`D` posts.
(d) to (g) : There is no reservation for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The Superme Court has observed in the
case of U.K. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Anil Malik Vs.
State of Haryana dated 4.5.1994 (JT 1994(3)SC.525) that `as a
rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly
on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit.
However to this general rule...there are some exceptions carved
out in the interests of justice and...one such exception is in
favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and
leaving his family in penury and without any means of
livelihood.` The apex court has also observed that `the only
ground which can justify the compassionate employment is the
penurious condition of the deceased`s famliy ` and it should be
offered only as `relief against destitution` and ` it must be
remembered in this connection that as against the destitute
famliy of the deceased Government servant, `there are millions of
other families which are equally, if not more destitute.` Hence a
ceiling of 5% has been provided for in our O.M. of 26.9.1995 so
that such exceptional appointments to public service which are
not based on merit and are also not through open competition are
kept to the minimum in accordance with the judgement of the
Superme Court in the case of U.K. Nagpal mentioned above.
Therefore what is really required is not an increase in the 5%
ceiling for compassionate appointment but an effective, fair and
just implementation of the existing policy guidelines in this
regard.
