Orissa High Court quotes George Orwell, upholds compassionate appointment for disabled CRPF man’s wife

Highlighting that the unfortunate couple has been fighting the legal battle one after another, the court said that in these tough times, when blood is cheaper than bread, they have been put to untold hardship all these years.

The order quoted famous English novelist and critic George Orwell lines in the judgement.

“The approach of the government is akin to the bureaucratic approach of the colonial era, long gone by after the advent of the Constitution,” the court observed

The order added that a society that does not hold the defence personnel in high esteem will do a disservice to itself, since its own security will be at stake if those who guard it are not regarded,” the court observed.

Findings

• It does not require any research to know that the personnel of combatant forces like the defence, BSF, ITBP, CRPF, etc., be they employed in the frontiers of the country or interior, may have to sacrifice their lives or limbs for securing the countrymen.
• Thus, theirs is truly a yeoman’s service. They deserve more respect and much deference.
• These personnel protect the orders of the country with the belief that if something wrong happens to their life or limb, the state and civil society would come forward for rescue by providing some succour to their families.
• Article 41 of the Constitution makes it imperative on the part of the state to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment. Such a case may arise because of the medical invalidity of a serving employee, as well.
• A claim for a compassionate appointment in such special cases has to be processed with a humane approach and not in a bureaucratic manner.
• The contention that the compassionate appointment is a matter of privilege as distinguished from right is a case of much ‘addo signifying nothing’.
• It is only a half-truth, because the same is regulated by the statutory policy.
• A spouse in a distressed family had no option but to undergo the test, or else her claim would run the risk of rejection on that ground alone. As a sinking person catches the straw hoping to stay afloat, the wife, too, has taken the written test.
• The wife, having failed in the written test, cannot stake her claim for the post of head constable and is liable to be rejected. There was no legal requirement of written test of this kind.
• The alleged failure in the said test cannot be a stumbling block to the consideration of her claim, for compassionate appointment, when compelling her to write the written test itself was incompetent.
• The authorities associated with the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, especially in cases of death or disability of an employee in combat forces, have to have their heart in the right place.
• There was an error apparent on the face of the record, which the order of the single judge has rightly set at naught.

Nature of compassionate appointment

• The idea of compassionate appointments has been holding the field for quite some time in public employment.
• The idea becomes pronounced when the appointing authority is the state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the apex court in a catena of decisions.
• The obligation to confer compassionate appointment is one of the attributes of a Welfare State, which has to conduct itself as a model employer.
• The precise connotation of the idea, however, was not laid in any authoritative decisions, for a long period earlier.
• The courts proceeded on an ad hoc basis depending upon the facts & circumstances of each case.
• They were guided by sympathy and sentiment than any recognised policy principles.

Decision

• This is a fit case for levying exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 only. However, we refrain from levying any with the hope that at least now the compassionate appointment to the post of head constable, in terms of the previous order, shall be given within the time to be stipulated hereunder.
• If delay is brooked, the levy takes place, without any further order, and the cost component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.
• The government is directed to implement the order of a single judge within 8 weeks, and report compliance to the registrar general of this court within one week following.

Background

• The case originated from a tragic incident in 2007, when a CRPF man, whilst in combat duty in Srinagar, suffered acute physical disability in a bomb blast engineered by terrorists.
• Following his discharge from service in 2014, his dependent wife requested a compassionate appointment.
• The authority initially turned down the request for the post of head constable, instead offering her a constable (ground duty) position.
• The government contended that she had failed a mandatory written test for the post.
• After the single judge ruled in favour of the couple in October 2024, the government moved the high court against the order.