ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010]
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
pleadings meticulously. There is no dispute with regard to the factual
aspects. The father of the petitioner in fact filed an application on 5.5.1998
seeking premature retirement. The said application was allowed by order
dated 14.12.1998. Thus he was permitted to retire w.e.f. 11.9.1998, i.e. the
date on which his leave expired. The cause of action for filing an application
for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme arose only after
14.12.1998 or at best on 11.9.1998.
9. In view of the aforesaid fact the application said to have been filed by the
petitioner on 5.5.1998 was a premature one. Admittedly, the petitioner filed
another application in the year 1999 by then the amended Rules had already
come into force. Thus, the authorities did not commit any irregularity in
rejecting the said application.
10. Law is well settled that an employment on compassionate ground
should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court can
not take a liberal view contrary to the Rules (see Kochin Dock Labour
Board Vs. Leemamma Samuel & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 87.
11. That apart, the object of providing compassionate
employment is only to relieve the family from the financial hardship.
Therefore, an “ameliorating relief” should not be taken as opening an
alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. (see Haryana State
Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85.
12. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana
& Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the
nature of right, which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on
compassionate ground. The Court observed that the only ground which can
justify compassionate employment is the penurious conditions of the
decease’s family……. The consideration of such employment is not a vested
right ……. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial
crisis.
13. In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. V. U.T.Chandigarh,
(2004) 2 SCC 130. The Supreme Court held as follows:
“We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by
itself can not be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the
appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that
despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article
142 of the Constitution of India, the Court ordinarily would not pass
an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision.”
14. In view of the aforesaid, among many other authoritative
pronouncements as the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, governing
compassionate appointment, have been amended, we are of the considered
75