In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to reconsider its rejection of a compassionate appointment application filed by a widow of a deceased constable. The court emphasized the necessity of exploring alternative posts, particularly in situations where strict eligibility requirements create barriers to the welfare of bereaved families.
Case Background
The case, Chanda Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWJC No. 5323 of 2023), highlights the plight of Chanda Kumari, whose husband, Guddu Kumar, a CISF constable, died in service on October 10, 2019. Following her husband’s untimely death, Kumari sought a compassionate appointment to secure her family’s livelihood, including her two minor children and elderly in-laws.
The petitioner applied for a Group ‘C’ position, but her application was repeatedly rejected due to her height of 142.5 cm, which fell short of the required 155 cm standard for the post, even after a 7.5 cm relaxation for women candidates. Despite her willingness to be considered for any available role, including Group ‘D’ posts, the authorities refused to accommodate her request, citing eligibility constraints.
This rejection led Kumari to approach the Patna High Court, seeking relief and asserting that the actions of the CISF violated both compassionate appointment principles and her family’s fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Addressed
The court identified and addressed several critical legal issues surrounding the concept of compassionate appointments:
- Purpose of Compassionate Appointments:
- Drawing from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, the court reaffirmed that compassionate appointments aim to provide immediate financial relief to families of government employees who die in harness.
- Justice Purnendu Singh noted: “The objective is to alleviate the financial hardship caused by the sudden demise of the breadwinner, and delays or rigid adherence to technicalities undermine the very purpose of the scheme.”
- Duty to Consider Alternative Roles:
- The court emphasized that in cases where eligibility constraints disqualify a candidate, the employer must evaluate alternative roles, including Group ‘D’ posts, as mandated by Office Memorandum No. 14014/2/2009-Estt. (D) dated April 3, 2012.
- Justice Singh remarked: “Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception to the recruitment process, intended to secure the livelihood of bereaved families. Authorities must consider all relevant factors, including financial condition, dependency, and willingness to accept alternative posts.”
- Timeliness of Appointments:
- The court underscored the importance of timely action, observing that prolonged delays defeat the purpose of compassionate appointments. It was noted that Kumari applied for the appointment in November 2019, but her case remained unresolved until 2023.
Court’s Observations
Justice Purnendu Singh delivered a scathing critique of the CISF’s handling of the petitioner’s application. He noted that while compassionate appointments are not a vested right, the authorities are obligated to act fairly and reasonably. The court stated:
- “Administrative rigidity and delay not only frustrate the purpose of compassionate appointments but also exacerbate the suffering of the bereaved family.”
- “When the financial distress of the family is evident, the employer must extend consideration to alternative posts, especially in cases involving women dependents with additional familial responsibilities.”
Judgment
The Patna High Court declared the CISF’s rejection of Kumari’s application for a Group ‘C’ post as legally unsustainable. The court directed the authorities to reconsider her case for any Group ‘D’ position, taking into account her financial condition, willingness to accept alternative roles, and eligibility under existing rules. Justice Singh emphasized that the decision should be expedited to provide immediate relief to the petitioner.
The court further observed that the petitioner’s expectations for an appointment were generated by the CISF’s own actions, and it was unjust to let those expectations go unmet due to procedural rigidity.
Counsel Representation
- For the Petitioner: Advocate Aatish Kumar
- For the Union of India: Senior Panel Counsel Amrendra Nath Verma and Advocate Abhirup
