Delhi High Court
Jagwati Devi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 September, 2002
Author: Khan
Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor
JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Petitioner's husband, a chowkidar in MES, died
in harness on 7.12.1997. Petitioner, his widow,
thereafter applied for compassionate appointment as
mazdoor on 24.12.1997. Her application was processed,
but no action was taken on this. But she was later
informed by communication dated 29.1.2001 that her name
was being deleted from the waiting list of candidates
for compassionate appointment under office memorandum
dated 3.12.1999 which provided that compassionate
appointment could be provided only against the ceiling
of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruit
quota in group C & D post and that too within one year
form the date of such application.
2. Petitioner's case is that she was entitled to
consideration apart from this policy which had come in
force subsequently even after the expiry of one year
from the date of her application and that her
candidature could not be rejected in disregard of
merits of her claim.
3. Respondents stand is that they had deleted all
the cases in the waiting list including that of
petitioner under the policy. L/C for respondents also
referred to some Supreme Court judgments to show that
compassionate appointment could not be ordered either
on compassion or in violation of the policy in force.
Nor had the candidate any automatic right of such
appointment.
4. The issue in the present case is not whether
petitioner issue had any automatic right of
compassionate appointment but whether her case was to
be considered dehors the policy which came into
existence subsequent to her application for appointment
and on it own merit. It is undisputed that she had
applied way back in 1997 and that respondents had kept
her application on the hold and had failed to take any
action on it for all these years. The blame should lay
at the door of respondents who had put her case under
the wraps all these years and had ultimately rejected
it under the policy letter directing deletion of names
of waiting list candidates after one year. This is not
to suggest that respondents lacked the power to bring
in force such policy or that they could not apply it to
appropriate cases while they were free to do so, they
could not have retrospective applied it to petitioner's
case and rejected it on that basis. Her case deserved
consideration on its own merit because it was because
of respondents inaction that it had remained pending
beyond one year and for so long. Respondents, in our
view, had messed up the matter and deprived her of
right of consideration in violation of her rights.
Therefore, rejection of her case on the strength of the
policy in question becomes unsustainable and is to be
set aside.
5. This petition is accordingly disposed of by
directing respondents to consider petitioner's case on
its own merits uninfluenced by the policy directive in
question and pass appropriate orders thereon within two
months from receipt of this order.
6. Having said so, we find that petitioner, a
widow, with little or no means to sustain her life, had
found herself involved in avoidable litigation more due
to respondents inaction to decide her case since 1997.
This must have naturally cost her dearly and strained
her otherwise brittle financial position. She,
therefore, deserved to be compensated for this. Taking
all this in regard, we deem it appropriate to award her
litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- in lump sum.
Respondents are directed to pay her this amount within
one month from today.
