Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs Mcd on 23 March, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. Mr. Dhananjay Shahi, learned counsel waives notice of Rule. With consent, the petition was heard finally.
2. The petitioner has claimed a direction to the respondent to appoint him in its services on compassionate basis.
3. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner is the son of one Sh. Satbir Singh, who died in the year 2001. At that time, he was working with the respondent (hereafter called 'the MCD') as a Beldar on daily wages.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent arbitrarily turned down the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis. It is claimed on the basis of the averment in the petition that the deceased had left behind seven dependents which included the widow and six children. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many of the dependent children were minors and continue to be so, even today.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon the documents placed on record which include the request for compassionate appointment, an affidavit filed by the widow of the deceased and also the initial recommendation made by the concerned Assistant Engineer as far back in 2002. On this basis of these materials, it was submitted that the respondents acted arbitrarily in rejecting the Petitioner's request.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent justified the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment. It was contended that as per the policy, claim applicable to the MCD, compassionate appointment is offered only to the dependents of employees who were working on permanent basis. Reliance has been placed upon the scheme of compassionate appointment contained in the memorandum dated 9th October, 1998 being OM 14014/6/94 issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training. The relevant portion relied upon is at para 17 which states, in clause (vii) (while summarizing the effects of the judgments of the various Courts) that the consideration as to whether the deceased was a permanent employee or not would be relevant. The stipulation is that compassionate appointment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on ad hoc basis.
7. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. to say that the High Court cannot direct issuance of compassionate appointment. The Court had held that such benefit or concession cannot be given to dependents of the deceased employees who are working on casual or ad hoc basis.
8. Compassionate appointment, is not a separate mode or manner of recruitment. It is an exception to the rule against preference on the basis of descent mandated by Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have carved out a small area from the operation of that provision, as a beneficial and humanitarian measure move to enable appointment of dependents of deceased officials or employees whose lives are thrown into trauma and who are likely to face extreme financial hardship or penury. The law on the point is well settled; the Courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction cannot be carried away by the subjective need of the individual and have to consider whether the application of mind by the authority on requests of compassionate appointment does not amount to unreasonableness having regard to the overall circumstances.
9. It is true that when an employee dies in harness, as in the present case, the dependents do face considerable hardship. However, the Court is hardly equipped to balance the needs or demands of two sets of claimants seeking compassionate appointment. Apart from lack of data and complete particulars, the exercise would be relative. In the present case, the deceased employee was admittedly not on a permanent employee. Although, the precise date on which he was engaged on ad hoc basis, is not clear, the learned counsel is unable to state that the deceased put in such a considerable period of service as to be considered nearly permanent or entitled to such permanent benefits. Besides, counsel for the respondent had submitted that an amount of Rs.2.58 lakhs was also paid to the dependents of the deceased employee.
10. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent in turning down the request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner cannot be termed as a arbitrary justifying exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
