Ravi Dhankar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1320 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Page 1688

1. The petitioner, Mr. Ravi Dhankar, has filed the present writ petition against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.5.2003 dismissing O.A.No.3257/2002 filed by one Mr. Ishwar Singh against the Commissioner of Police, Government of NCT of Delhi.

2. Mr. Ishwar Singh is the grand-father of the petitioner herein and had filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal seeking appointment of the petitioner in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. Mother of the petitioner, Mrs. Sumitra Devi, was working as a Head Constable in Delhi Police. She committed suicide and expired on 9.11.1995. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner made an application with Delhi Police for appointment of the petitioner as Constable on compassionate grounds on 23.9.1996. In response to this application, the petitioner's father was informed that the petitioner was minor and he may apply for the post of Constable on compassionate grounds as and when he becomes major and his application will be considered on merits at that time. Thereafter, the grand-father of the petitioner made an application on 16.9.2000, inter alia, stating that the petitioner had attained the age of majority and had also passed his matriculation examination. The Delhi Police was requested to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in place of Mrs. Sumitra Devi.

3. The Delhi Police, however, by its letter dated 3.7.2002 informed the grand-father of the petitioner, Mr. Ishwar Singh, that the case of appointment of Mr. Ravi Dhankar on compassionate grounds was considered by the Screening Committee and after due deliberation the same stands rejected. It was mentioned in this letter that the Screening Committee had taken into account the financial condition of the deceased's family, liabilities and other relevant facts like number of earning members, size of the family, age of the deceased, age of children as well as instructions of the Government of India on the subject and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors before rejecting the claim.

Page 1689

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 3.7.2002, the father of the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application bearing No.3257/02 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the Original Application was bad in law for non-joinder of necessary party as Mr.Ravi Dhankar had not been imp leaded as a party. On merits also, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the authorities had examined the relevant facts including the retirement benefits and the fact that compassionate appointments are restricted only to 5% of the quota of direct recruitment and dismissed the said application.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been wrongly rejected and the order passed by the Delhi Police is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not apply its judicious mind while dismissing the Original Application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that all pensionary benefits of the deceased, Sumitra Devi have been paid to the two children including the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment was considered by the Screening Committee but was found to be less deserving in comparison to other cases, which were approved. Reference was made to the O.M of Government of India dated 9.10.1998 that compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in Group `C' and `D' posts.

7.It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is normally granted to enable a family to tide over the sudden economic calamity and it should be strictly made as per the policy/rules in this regard. As compassionate appointment is made with the object to enable a family to get over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the sole bread winner, it cannot be claimed after the said sudden crisis is over and after lapse of time. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors., , on almost identical facts has held that keeping in view the purpose and object behind compassionate appointments, a family member who was minor at the time of death of the deceased government employee cannot claim any reservation or right to appointment once he becomes major after a number of years, unless there is a specific provision in the policy/rules. No such provision in the policy or rules applicable to the petitioner's case has been pointed out to us.

8. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the petitioner expired on 9.11.1995 and at that time the petitioner was minor and therefore could not have been appointed. The question of appointment could be considered only after nearly 5 years in the year 2000, when the petitioner became major. Keeping in view the lapse of time i.e. the period of nearly 5 years between the death of the government servant and the date on which the petitioner became major we do not think this request can be allowed. Page 1690 Any appointment after a gap of 5 long years cannot be regarded as an appointment to enable a family to tide over the sudden immediate financial crisis as a result of death of a government servant. We must keep in mind that compassionate appointment cannot be justified on strict application of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Its sole purpose and object is to relieve dependents of a deceased employee, who has died in harness, of the unexpected hardship and economic distress caused by the demise of the earning member of the family. A long gap between death and the day on which the petitioner became eligible to be considered will go against this basic object and purpose and cannot be accepted, as it would amount to another mode or source of recruitment. Recently the Supreme Court has in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Anr. v. Nanakchand and Ors. examined a case of a minor who had attained majority after 10 years of death of the government servant and had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. High Court accepted the request and allowed the writ petition . Noticing that the purpose behind compassionate appointments is to tide over sudden financial crisis when an employee who has served the State dies in harness, it was held that highly belated claims, long after the death of the government servant should be rejected.

9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.