Jashbir Singh vs The Director (Inmas) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 769 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the writ petition, which is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2343/2002, which was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. While the father of the petitioner was working as Technician-B-Grade, he died in harness on 16th March, 2000 leaving behind his widow, one son and four daughters. However, three daughters of the deceased were given in marriage during the life time of the deceased himself. After the death of the deceased, an application was filed by the widow of the deceased praying for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The said application was processed and after due consideration thereof, the said request was rejected by order dated 8th March, 2001 on the ground that the widow of the deceased owns a house and is not dependent on her children and is possessed of sufficient means by way of retiral benefits. The said request was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner for whom the said compassionate appointment was sought for was already married and therefore, ineligible for service. Even thereafter the petitioner submitted repeated representations which were also rejected. The aforesaid orders rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment were under challenge in the Original Application, which was filed before the learned Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the grounds of rejection are not valid as the family is still in financial crisis as one of the sisters of the petitioner is yet to be married. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent contending, inter alia, that as per DoPT's Scheme of 9th October, 1998, the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis which is caused on the death of the sole bread-earner, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood. The said prayer before the Tribunal was also contested on the ground that the widow of the deceased got an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as retiral benefits and is in receipt of family pension of Rs.2,300/- plus DA and that the family of the deceased is having own residential house and also half killa of agricultural land. The stand taken was that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Scheme and as the petitioner was not found indigent and there were more deserving cases, no case for compassionate appointment is made out. Before us it was also contended that there is no vacancy under 5% of direct recruitment quota for compassionate appointment and, therefore, even otherwise the petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment. Reliance was also placed on an office memorandum issued by the government on 19th July, 2001 laying down the limit for waiting list only for a period of one year, which could be extended to a period of three years in an appropriate case.

3. We have considered the contentions raised before us. Request for compassionate appointment of persons like the petitioner is governed by the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. The said Scheme provides that compassionate appointment could be made up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. It is also laid down in the said Scheme that while the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of government servant on casual/daily/ad hoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar in considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments. It is further laid down in the said Scheme that only dependants of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood could be appointed on compassionate grounds. It is also provided therein that the whole object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. In the said Scheme reference is also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar reported in JT 1996 (5) SC 319 and to the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai reported in JT 1996 (9) SC 197 and a stipulation as made therein that the ratio decided by the said decisions should be kept in view while considering the case of compassionate appointment.

4. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court clearly lay down that the appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose. The said principle was directed to be kept in view while considering a case for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and Ors. reported in JT 1994 (2) SC 183 that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate grounds but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such an appointment.

5. In a decision of this court in Lal Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board reported in 1998 III AD (Delhi) 877, reference was made to other decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 525 and also to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Smt. Jafli Devi reported in 1997 (5) SCC 301. In the aforesaid two decisions, the Supreme Court held that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is tenable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and the distress caused to the family by demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. In State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Smt. Jafli Devi (supra) 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.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we may now consider the pleas that are raised before us. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the grounds for rejection are not valid as the family is still in financial crisis as one of the sisters of the petitioner is yet to be married. It was next submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner has also died in the meantime and, therefore, family pension, which was being paid to the widow is also no longer being paid. The deceased died in harness on 16th March, 2000. The period of five years has already lapsed. The widow received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as retiral benefits and she was also receiving the family pension of Rs. ,300/- plus dearness allowance. The petitioner is having own residential house and half killa of agricultural land. The petitioner himself was married when his father died and in terms of the record he has only one sister to be looked after. The retrial benefits which were being received by the mother of the petitioner being the widow of the deceased have also now come into the hands of the petitioner. In the context of the aforesaid financial position and status of the family of the petitioner, it as held by the respondents that his case is not covered by the Scheme as the family has already been able to tide over the financial crisis, if any, that was caused due to the death of the earning member in the family. It is also disclosed from the records that there is no vacancy available under 5% of direct recruitment quota. It is also revealed from the records that the request of the widow of the deceased / mother of the petitioner for consideration of compassionate appointment of her son was also considered and reconsidered in the light of the Scheme of 1998. On such consideration, it was held by the respondents that the widow had no liability and was having sufficient means to tide over the sudden financial crisis. In view of absence of any vacancy and the fact that there were more deserving cases than the applicant, the respondents rejected the claim. The aforesaid consideration and the grounds for rejection cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrelevant. The decision taken is in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. In the result, the writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed.