Satyavir vs Airports Authority Of India And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 799 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The Petitioner seeks appropriate writ or direction from the Respondent (hereafter referred to as the Authority) to grant him compassionate appointment. The undisputed facts in these proceedings are that the Petitioner's father late Shri C.P.Singh was working as Senior Auto Electrician. He died on 27.8.2001. He was survived by his three sons. The Petitioner, at the time of his father's death, was 39 years of age; he is the eldest son.

2. The deceased employee had nominated the other two sons to receive the terminal and death cum gratuity benefits. One of the younger sons Ranbir Singh had sought for, and was granted compassionate Appointment by the Authority. It later transpired that the basis for the benefit was inter alia a No Objection Certificate. The Petitioner became aware that such document had been used to secure employment. He complained to the authorities, when it was discovered that Ranbir Singh had indulged in misrepresentation. Consequently, the appointment was cancelled. The Petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing WP (C)No.8052/2002. By Order dated 9.1.2004 this Court had disposed off that writ petition directing the Respondent authority to consider the Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on its merits.

3. On 21.8.2004 the Authority sought for some information and documentary proof in support of the Petitioner's claim that he was in dire need of compassionate appointment. The particulars and documents were sent. Eventually on the basis of report of a committee dated 15.3.2004, the Respondent Authority rejected the claim. The said inspection report which led to the turning down of the Petitioner's request reads as follows:

INSPECTION REPORT TO CONSIDER SH SATYAVIR SINGH FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN AAI (IAD) IGIA

Reference office order -RC AAD/PERS/RC/1067/2003/61 dated 17.02.2004 for carrying out inspection/verification at Village Kapurpur, Sapnavat, P.O.Dhaulana, Distt.Ghaziabad of various details/Bio Data, subjected by Shri Satyavir Singh S/o Late Sh C.P.Singh for considering him for suitable post in AAI (IAD) on compassionate grounds.

2. Committee consisting of Sh. R.P.Singh, Asstt. GM (Technical) and Sh A.B.Saxena AM (Pers) inspected the school from where, the incumbent passed class XII. Committee met Sh Shiv Swaroop Singh, Chauhan, Principal, Uday Pratap Inter College, Sapnawat Dtt. Ghaziabad. The original records of Transfer-certificate, Mark Sheet were verified and found correct. Principal of the school did the certification on photo-copies for its correctness.

3. Committee, then, went to the native village of Sh. Satyavir Singh viz. Kapurplur and met Sh. Rajeshwar Singh, Pradhan of the village, who gave the following information:

a) Late Shri C.P.Singh, has three sons mamely Shri Satyavir Singh, Sh. Ranbuir Singh and Sh Rambir Singh after the death of Late Sh CP Singh, it was decided between his 03 sons that the property will be equally divided between three sons. Compassionate will be taken by youngest son Sh.Rambir Singh and amount of Gratuity, CPF, Sahyog, leave encashment etc. shall be shared by Shri Satyavir Singh & Sh. Ranbir Singh however since Sh. Ramnir Singh who got employment in AAI did not give this money i.e. CPF, Gratuity etc. to his two brothers. They made complaint in AAI and simultaneously filed case in court also. Shri Rambir Singh has been terminated as he submitted fake certificates to seek employment in AAI.

b) Late Sh C P Singh was having the following properties:

i) 12 kacha viga (2.5 acre approximate) agricultural land which has been divided equally between three sons. Approximate income from the share of agricultural land of Sh Satyavir Singh is Rs. 20000/- per annum. Approximate land cost of the share of Sh Satyavir Singh is about Rs. 2 lakhs, as informed by Gram Pradhan.

ii) One ancestral old double story house (built in approximate 300 Square yards) in village Kapurpur. Sh Satyavir Singh & Sh Rambir Singh both are residing in the house in their portions.

Iii) Late Sh C.P.Singh has one house in Delhi also which is occupied by his second brother Sh Ranvir Singh. He has paid some money to Sh Satyavir Singh/Rambir Singh in lieu of the share in Delhi's house.

Sh. Ranvir Singh doing some pvt. Job in Delhi.

Information given by the Gram Pradhan, Sh Rajeshwar Singh regarding properties of late Sh C.P.Singh, is enclosed.

             (R P SINGH)                        (A B SAXENA)
            ASSTT. GM (TECH)                ASSTT. MANAGER (PERS)
 

4. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the determination by the Committee about his possessing sufficient names and the factors taken into consideration by the Committee were not in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was not recipient of the monetary benefits paid on account of the death of Shri C.P.SIngh since they were claimed in entirety by the nominees, viz the Petitioner's brothers. It is also claimed that the shares and the ancestral lands as well as the old house in the village are in adequate for anyone to survive. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. to say that the executive authority, (in this case the Airports Authority) is under an obligation to objectively consider the claims in each individual case and decide whether the dependent of the deceased employee deserves compassionate appointment.

5. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied the essential facts. However, it is submitted that having regard to the amounts of monetary benefits which were disbursed to the other brothers who were younger to the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner was in possession of shares in the property and also that the deceased had left behind one house in Delhi, it was considered that the application for compassionate appointment could not be accepted.

6. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Court should be circumspect in issuing the orders directing compassionate appointment. As per the Supreme Court in its various judgments the financial circumstances of the dependants are of paramount consideration and compassionate appointment being exception to the normal mode of recruitment has to be restored to in extremely rare cases where the death of the public employee would invariably result in destitution or penury of the dependents.

7. The facts of this case show that undoubtedly the younger brother of the Petitioner was favorably considered for compassionate appointment. However, that proved to be on the basis of spurious documents leading to the cancellation of the order itself. Although that is one factor to be taken into consideration, in my opinion by itself it could not be considered decisive. The fact that the Petitioner's father left behind certain properties, the Petitioner's age and family circumstances which also point out his possession of shares in immovable property were considered as sufficient grounds to decline the claim for compassionate appointment.

8. While the Petitioner may perhaps justly harbour the grievance about his straitened circumstances such subjective considerations by themselves cannot impel the employer to conclude that the dependent of a deceased employee is in exceptionally straitened circumstances. The determination is not based on the subjective assessment of the applicant but on an objective relative assessment or evaluation of merits of different claimants. After all the quota for compassionate appointment is itself small and by its very nature, has to be given to those who are exceptionally hardpressed, financially speaking. The determination is relative because that the claims are not merely of one applicant but of all others, who claim to be dependants, and approach the authority under similar circumstances, While doing so the authority has to bear in mind the objectives of the scheme and choose who according to it is the most deserving candidate. Courts cannot except in exceptional circumstances where facts are so established, conclude that the determination in such cases are per se illegal or mala fide. No such features have been proved in this case.

9. In view of the above findings, I am of the view that the Petitioner cannot succeed in these proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.