High Court raps Haryana for inconsistent stand on compassionate jobs

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 23

In a major embarrassment for the Haryana Government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the state has displayed inconsistency in the cases of compassionate appointments. It objected to higher post claims on the one hand while granting similar relief on the other, disregarding in the process the settled law and its own stand.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi also made it clear that the officer, responsible for passing such orders, was required to be made accountable. The assertion came as the Bench directed the placing of the matter before the Haryana Chief Secretary. He was asked to initiate appropriate action against the officer concerned, to seek his/her explanation and find out the circumstances in which such arbitrary and illegal orders were passed.

The Bench was of the view that the orders were being passed disregarding the settled law for giving undue benefits to employees in a pick and choose manner at the cost of other employees. Justice Sethi also directed the quashing of the orders granting to the respondent-employees the benefit of compassionate appointment on a higher post with retrospective effect and “that too after two decades”.

The issue before Justice Sethi’s Bench was whether a candidate, after accepting appointment on compassionate ground on a particular post, could subsequently stake claim to upgrade to a higher post on the basis of being eligible for the same at the time of the initial appointment.

The matter was brought to Justice Sethi’s notice after the petitioners, initially recruited as forester and later promoted as Deputy Forest Ranger, submitted that some other employees granted compassionate appointment as forest guards were given the benefit of upgrade as forester from the initial date of their appointment. They were, as such, made senior to them.

Justice Sethi asserted that a consistent view since 1994 was that a candidate after accepting a particular post offered on compassionate ground could not be allowed to turn around and claim the benefit of a higher post.

“The department is supposed to know the law as a similar relief is being agitated by the state tooth and nail in a number of cases, where the same relief claim of a higher post is being objected to by the state. On the one hand, the state is objecting to the relief being claimed for compassionate appointment on a higher post, on the other, a similar relief is being accepted by the respondent-state, disregarding the settled law and its own position in similar cases,” the Bench asserted

Justice Sethi also noted that the Chief Conservators of Forests had opposed the grant of relief to the respondent-employees but his recommendations were ignored for granting the benefit.

Upgrade to higher post

The issue before Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi’s Bench was whether a candidate, after accepting appointment on compassionate ground on a particular post, could subsequently stake claim to upgrade to a higher post on the basis of being eligible for the same at the time of the initial appointment.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.