Shiv Prasad vs The Director, Directorate Of ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 676 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, Shiv Prasad, is the second son of deceased Ram Chander, who was employed with respondent No.2 i.e. Delhi Kannad Senior Secondary School, as a Watchman. He joined the Service, when he was 19 years old i.e., on 6.10.1961. He was to superannuate on 13.12.2002. It was just 10 months before his superannuation, when cruel hand of fate struck and he passed away on 13.2.2002.

3. Petitioner before the Court is the second son, who is married having two children. The deceased also left behind his widow Babuna Devi and an elder son, Rajinder Prasad. Besides he had two daughters, who are married and settled. The widow Babuna Devi is stated to be working as a maid in Progressive School, drawing emoluments of Rs.2,000/- or so. The elder son, Rajinder Prasad, is stated to be living in Village, cultivating the land, owned by the deceased and his family. It is the petitioner, Shiv Prasad, who has laid the claim for compassionate appointment.

4. Petitioner applied for appointment as a Watchman on compassionate ground. Respondent/School vide its letter dated 28.8.2002, communicated that the Management Committee in its meeting on 17.3.2002, had rejected the case for compassionate appointment. A copy of this order was also communicated to the Dy.Director of Education.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the rejection order does not communicate the reasons for rejection. Even though the communication of the rejection does not contain the reasons, reasons do exist on the record and are contained in the letter of 29.7.2002/3.8.2002, written by respondent/School to the Dy.Director of Education, explaining the position with regard to the petitioner's case. The principles governing grant of compassionate appointment and the criteria therefore is now fairly settled. Reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. Etc. reported at . wherein the Supreme Court summed up the same in para 8, which is reproduced as under:-

"8.. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exceptions to the general provisions. All exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care, has therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, , this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family."

6. Let us consider the facts of this case. The deceased watchman had almost completed his entire tenure. He died 10 months prior to superannuation. His terminal benefits are in the range of Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 1,60,000/- towards provident fund, which are available to the widow. Apart from it, widow is entitled to pension. The elder son is settled in Village, carrying on cultivation. The widow of the deceased was cagey about disclosing her own vocation. Initially it was submitted that she was unemployed. Subsequently, it transpired that she is working as a maid in the Progressive School. Be that as it may, terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.2 lacs have been received. Family pension entitlement is there and in addition, she is presently working with the Progressive School, drawing emoluments of Rs.2,000/- per month or so. Coming now to the petitioner, petitioner claims to be unemployed. It has not been disclosed as to what is the occupation of the petitioner, who is 30 years old married with two children. On a query put during the course of proceedings, it is said that petitioner is working as a loader/unloader. Indeed, he is supporting a family.

7. Considering the facts, as noted above, the decision of the Managing Committee of the School, declining compassionate appointment, cannot be said to be flawed or arbitrary. Petitioner and his family cannot claim that there was a sudden crisis and family was in penury and without any means of livelihood, thus requiring succour through compassionate appointment. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of rejection. No ground is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Writ petition is dismissed.