Chanderjit Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2060 Del

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Line Operator in the Haryana Circle of respondent No. 2. As he was suffering from cancer since the year 2001, he expired on 10th October, 2003 leaving behind his wife and five children out of which the petitioner is at the second place. It is stated that on 5th December, 2003, the petitioner made an application for being considering for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though the request of the petitioner was made to the CGMT,Haryana Circle, Ambala, it is submitted that the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Headquarters of respondent No. 2 after a period of one year. The Chief Managing Director of respondent No. 2 directed the Sonepat Circle of Haryana Circle to produce a report about the financial condition of the petitioner which was prepared by the JTO and forwarded vide letter dated 22nd November, 2004. After the same was considered, vide order dated 10th August, 2005, the High Powered Committee of respondent No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by holding that the financial position of the family was sound considering the assets, liabilities and other relevant factors relating to the case of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision of the High Powered Committee was communicated to the petitioner under cover of letter dated 16th September, 2005 issued by the CGMT, Haryana Circle, Ambala. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 did not appreciate the letter dated 22nd November, 2004 issued by the JTO giving the description about the family members of the petitioner in the correct perspective. He submits that the petitioner has three younger brothers who are dependent upon him and merely because he has a residential premises at a backward place cannot be a consideration for rejecting his application for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 has taken a preliminary objection in its counter affidavit with regard to the maintainability of the petition in this Court on the ground that the cause of action for filing the present petition had accrued at Haryana and hence, the petitioner ought to have approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court for the relief sought by him in the present writ petition.

5. On merits, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the Circle Selection Committee of the Haryana Circle did not recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and observed in its meeting held on 27th August, 2004 as below:

The ex-official, a LIO expired on 10.10.2003 at the age of 56 years of service. One son is already married and well-settled. The family got the terminal benefits of Rs.6,50,692/- and is in receipt of basic family pension of Rs.3645/-. The condition of family is not indigent.

6. He submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the headquarters of the respondent No. 2 for further consideration vide letter dated 23rd October, 2004. The High Powered Committee took into consideration the case of the petitioner and in its meeting held on 10th August, 2005, rejected the same by making the following observations:

The case, not recommended by CGM of the circle, was forwarded for relaxation of earning member in the family as the eldest son, who is son from first wife, is working in NDPL, married having three daughters and living separately in the same premises of house. The ex-official expired on 10.10.2003 at the age of 56 years survived by his second wife and five sons. The applicant is the second son, married and working as contract labour in Kundli Telephone Exchange. The assessment of the financial condition of the family was made by the Committee, taking into account its assets and liabilities and all other relevant factors viz. the elder son is already employed and the applicant's earnings is a additional support to the family. Keeping all above in view, the committee rejected the request in accordance with DoPT OM No. 14014/6/94-Esst (D) dated 09.10.1998, the scheme for the purpose.

7. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that in view of the aforesaid decision, it is apparent that not only has the family of the petitioner got terminal benefits of Rs.6,50,692/-, but the mother of the petitioner is also in receipt of family pension of Rs.3,645/-. Further, at the relevant time when the petitioner made the application, he was working as a contract labour at the Telephone Exchange at Kundli and was admittedly earning Rs.2,000/- p.m., which fact is borne out from the letter dated 22nd November, 2004 issued by the JTO, Haryana Circle.

8. Law on compassionate appointment is now well settled. While giving compassionate appointment, it must be kept in mind that it is not unduly unfair to the rights of those persons who are eligible to seek appointment against a post which would have been available but for the provision enabling appointment to be made on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee. Reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Manipur v. Md.Rajaodin reported as . Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and such appointment cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. While considering a claim for appointment on compassionate basis, it is also to be considered in the light of the sudden crisis occurring in the family of an employee who has died in harness. However, relevant Rules, Regulations, Administrative Instructions and Orders in this behalf must be considered by the court and the same ought to withstand the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The object of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and the said consideration for appointment is an exception to the rule and cannot be taken as the rule. Support in this regard is drawn from the following judgments:

(i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana

(ii) State of haryana v. Rani Devi .

(iii) State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta .

(iv) MCD v. Jagdish Prasad, decided by Delhi High Court on 23rd December, 2005 in WP(C) No. 721/2003.

9. It is also relevant to note that compassionate appointment in respondent No. 2 organization is governed by the scheme, regulations and policy guidelines in this regard according to which compassionate appointment could be made up to maximum of 5% vacancies falling under a direct recruitment quota. Such appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations and Administrative Instructions taking into consideration the condition of the family of the deceased employee.

10. A perusal of the decision taken by the High Powered Committee of respondent No. 2 as also the Circle Selection Committee shows that the Committee refused the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment keeping in view the various factors and circumstances, including the fact that the family had got terminal benefits of Rs.6,50,692/- and was in the receipt of family pension of Rs.3,645/-, the employee in question had expired at the age of 56 years, just four years short of retirement and the applicant was working as a contract labour in the Kundli Telephone Exchange. It was also taken note of that the elder son of the deceased employee was working in NDPL and living separately in the same premises which was owned and occupied by the other family members of the deceased employee. All the aforesaid factors taken note of by the High Powered Committee shows application of mind.

11. There is force in the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner and his family had received all the terminal benefits due to them in addition to family pension. There is no such financial crisis or extreme financial difficulty for which the petitioner needs appointment with respondent No. 2 on compassionate grounds. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported as , the Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment ought not to be given where there is no financial hardship as the purpose and object behind the said appointment is to tide over certain financial crisis. While determining the said aspect, the Supreme Court has held that the retiral benefits have also to be taken note of and cannot be ignored.

12. The plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner that as of date, the petitioner is without any job and hence he is entitled for compassionate appointment, cannot be considered by this Court at this late stage for the reason that this Court is examining the application of mind by respondent No. 2 in considering the application of the petitioner at the relevant time. The current scenario cannot be taken into consideration, more so, when the challenge in the writ petition is limited to the impugned order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by respondent No. 2 and the situation of tiding over sudden crisis has faded away, the deceased employee having expired four years ago.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that as the petitioner has not be able to establish any case for interference in the impugned order dated 16th September, 2005, the prayer made in the writ petition is declined and the same is rejected, being devoid of merits. There shall be no orders as to costs.