Lal Singh vs Delhi Vidyut Board
1998 Latest Caselaw 314 Del

JUDGMENT

Dr. M. K. Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent on compassionate grounds. Father of the petitioner, late Shri Mohan Singh was working with the respondent as Bill Messenger However, as the fate would have it, the father of the petitioner died on 16.9.1994 while in service of the respondent.

2. It is stated in the petition that at the time of his death the father of the petitioner left behind his widow and three sons as his legal heirs. The two brothers of tile petitioner, it is stated are already married and are maintaining separate kitchen and are living separately even prior to the death of the father of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has passed his High School and Intermediate examination he is eligible to be appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent and therefore, in terms of the circulars issued by the Government of India the petitioner sought for appointment as Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent on compassionate ground.

3. The petitioner has relied upon the circular issued by the Government of India dated 25.11.1978 in support of his claim contending inter alia that the respondent is under legal obligation to offer employment to atleast one of the dependents of the deceased employee. In support of his submission that his two brothers are living separately, the petitioner has also annexed a ration card issued in the month of November, 1994. The respondent however, disputed the claim of the petitioner and stated that the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground as his case is not covered within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the respondent for such appointments. It is stated that the two brothers of the petitioner are employed and inspite of request made by the respondent under its letter dated 16.8 1996 to the petitioner to furnish information about his two brothers and their income no such information was furnished by the petitioner nor were their names disclosed. In respect of the ration card annexed to the petition the respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had produced a new ration card prepared in the month of November 1994 after the death of the father and therefore, the petitioner was asked to give a copy of the earlier ration card to ascertain whether the brothers were dependent on the father or not or whether they were living with the family or not.

4. As against the aforesaid request the petitioner in his letter dated 21.11.1996 furnished a copy of the earlier ration card from which it is disclosed that the two brothers were part of the family and admittedly therefore, the names of the said two brothers were deleted only after the death of the father just to make out a case for compassionate appointment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that during the course of enquiry it was revealed that the two brothers were also living with that petitioners father as their names were there in the ration card and both the said brothers were employed. It is also stated that their names came to be deleted from the ration card only in order to make out a case for compassionate appointment by concealing material facts.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the two brothers of the petitioner although are working and are in service, they are however not residing with the family of the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contention the Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the contents of the ration card issued in the month of November 1994 He also relied Upon the Government of India circular dated 25.11.78 laying down the policies and guidelines for making appointment on compassionate grounds. He particularly relied upon Clause 5 of the aforesaid Memorandum wherein it is stated that in deserving cases even where there is an earning member of the family a son/daughter near relative of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances, may be considered for appointment to the post. The Counsel further relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W. 4381/1995 disposed of on 3.10.1996 wherein in a case of one of the brothers staying separately this Court remitted back the case for the decision of the respondents to decide the case afresh in accordance with the policy with a further direction that in case the petitioner is found eligible his name would be brought on the relevant panel.

6. Ms. Ahlawat, appearing for the respondent drew my attention to the letter dated 12.2.1997 sent by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner intimating the decision of the respondent that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. She has also drawn my attention to the affidavit submitted by Shri Lal Singh, while submitting his application for appointment wherein Lal Singh the petitioner while submitting his application for appointment did not disclose in the said affidavit that he had got some other brothers also. The said letter further disclosed that while pursuing the ration card it was found that he has two other brothers and accordingly, information with regard to them were called for by respondent No.1 which were not furnished except by giving a vague reply to the query. The said letter also referred to the policy adopted by respondent No. 1 for granting appointment on compassionate grounds laying down that if any member of the family of the demised officer/official is in service or their monthly income apart from their pension is more than Rs. 1,100/-, he cannot he granted appointment on compassionate ground.

7. Ms. Ahlawat also placed before me the relevant guidelines laying down the policy regarding compassionate appointments to son, daughter, near relatives of the officers/other employees of the respondent No. 1 under G.M.(E)'s letter dated 24.7.1989. The said policy clearly lays down that in case of false information given or concealment of information the appointment offered or made on the basis of such information would be canceled and the services would be terminated. The said policy further disclosed that the respondent had been following the practice that the appointment on compassionate grounds would not be given to the dependents of the deceased employees if any member of the family is already in regular service and for that purpose the respondent did not make any distinction whether the dependent is employed in the Undertaking or elsewhere or whether the dependents live with the family of the deceased or separately or whether the son or the widow are her step sons or her sons. In support of her submission Ms. Ahlawat also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gautam Vs. Delki Electric Supply Undertaking and Others; in C.W. 4284/1995 disposed of on 1.10.1996.

8. In the context of the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the material on the record as also the decision relied upon, the issue that arises for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Junior Clerk on compassionate grounds. The law with regard to such appointments is by now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana; , the Supreme Court held that as a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit and that no other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. The Supreme Court however, added that to the aforesaid general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies, and one of such exceptions is in favour of the dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood, it was held that in such a case, out of pure humanitarian considerations as also taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, one of the dependents of the deceased might be considered and given an employment. In the said case it was held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Supreme Court therefore, decided that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. In a subsequent decision in State of Himanchal Pradesh and Another Vs. Smt. Jafli Devi the Supreme Court held that the policy laid down by the Government should not be departed from by the High Court merely on account of the sympathetic considerations and hardship. It was further held that where the son of the deceased employee was already in Government service the denial of compassionate appointment by the department to another son of the same deceased employee cannot be interfered with.

9. The provisions of the policy guideline adopted by respondent No. 1 in respect of compassionate appointment have been indicated hereinbefore. In terms thereof the policy that appears to have been adopted by the respondent is that no appointment on compassionate ground should be given to the dependent of the deceased employee, if any member of his family is in regular service irrespective of the fact whether such employment is with the respondent No. 1 or any other department and also whether the dependent lives with the family of the deceased or separately. A further condition is that in case of false information given or concealment of information the appointment offered or made on the basis of such information would be cancelled and the services would be terminated.

10. During the course of the arguments the petitioner who was personally present in Court admitted through his Counsel that one of his brothers is employed with respondent No. 1 for the last 20 years whereas his other brother is also in service although he could not provide specifically the name and particulars of his employer. This admission, during the hearing by the petitioner proves and establishes the false information submitted by the petitioner even to this Court as would be apparent from the following contents of his affidavit which is annexed as Annexure P-8 at page 29 of the Paper Book:

"3. That my elder brother, are not residing with me since the date of death of my father.

4. My brother is engaged in ploughing of an agricultural piece of land. If there are good rains, it becomes a little and bit possible to earn bread for himself and the family. In case of scanty rains, drought like conditions prevail and it therefore, becomes impossible to make both ends meet. In such a natural calamity there is certainly no other visibility of any source of income."

11. According to the contents of the said affidavit his brother is said to be an agriculturist whereas now it appears that his two brothers are in service. Aforesaid contents also prove and establish that till the death of his father the two brothers were staying with the family which fact is also proved from the earlier ration card wherein the names of both the brothers appear as the members of the family. Reasons for shifting the family by the two brothers immediately after the death of the father have not been stated and it is also difficult to understand that two earning members of the family would shift out of the parental house immediately after the death of the father. The petitioner tried also to conceal facts and information and in fact provided false information with regard to the avocation of one of his brothers atleast.

12. In my considered opinion the facts and circumstances of the present case also appear to be somewhat similar to the facts and circumstances in C.W. 4284/1995. On consideration of entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In my considered opinion the decision making process of the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational and therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed but without any costs.