Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Aditya Yuvraj Gond Vs State of Bihar & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20773/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/02/2024
Related Assessment Year :

Aditya Yuvraj Gond Vs State of Bihar & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)

This article analyzes the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Aditya Yuvraj Gond Vs State of Bihar & Anr. (SLP (C) No. 20773/2019), where the court rejected a plea for compassionate appointment filed 23 years after the death of the government employee.

Background:

  • The petitioner, Aditya Yuvraj Gond, sought a compassionate appointment in the Bihar government after his father, a government employee, passed away in December 2001.
  • The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the significant time gap since the employee’s death.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that compassionate appointments are not a guaranteed right and are meant to provide immediate financial support to families facing hardship due to the sudden death of their primary earner.
  • The court acknowledged the well-established principle that compassionate appointments are not a form of regular employment and are intended for exceptional circumstances requiring urgent assistance.
  • Considering the 23-year delay in seeking the appointment, the court found it difficult to justify granting the petition due to the time elapsed since the employee’s death.

Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 23 Years

Key Takeaways:

  • This case reinforces the time-sensitive nature of compassionate appointment requests. The longer the delay in filing the petition, the lower the chances of success.
  • Individuals seeking compassionate appointments are advised to act promptly upon experiencing financial hardship due to the death of a family breadwinner.
  • It is crucial to understand that compassionate appointments are discretionary and depend on the specific circumstances of each case.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

Heard Mr. Sarim Naved, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Shaswati Parhi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar.

2. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 31.12.2001 while serving as a Section Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department. Present is a claim for compassionate appointment for the son of the deceased employee.

3. The High Court under the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2019 considered that a claim for compassionate appointment should not be permitted to be legally enforced, 17 years after the death of the employee.

4. It is well settled that claim for compassionate appointment is not to be considered as a regular mode of appointment and it is intended to address the penurious situation in the immediate aftermath of the death of the bread earner of the family. As noted, the concerned employee died 23 years back and in these circumstances, we are disinclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930