Delhi High Court
Virender Singh Negi vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 10 July, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
+ WP(C) No.9942/2006
Virender Singh Negi ........ Petitioner
through: Nemo
VERSUS
University of Delhi & Anr. ........ Respondent
through: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Adv. for
respondent No.1
Ms.Maldeep Sidhu, Adv. for
respondent No.2
WP(C) No.8221/2006
Naresh Kumar ........ Petitioner
through: Mr.Sanjay Ghose, Adv. with
Ms.Neelam, Adv.
VERSUS
University of Delhi & Anr. ........ Respondent
through: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Adv. for
respondent No.1
Ms.Maldeep Sidhu, Adv. for
respondent No.2
WP(C) No.8222/2006
Brijesh Kumar ........ Petitioner
through: Mr.Sanjay Ghose, Adv. with
Ms.Neelam, Adv.
VERSUS
University of Delhi & Anr. ........ Respondent
through: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Adv. for
respondent No.1
Ms.Maldeep Sidhu, Adv. for
respondent No.2
RESERVED ON:
07.07.2008
DATE OF DECISION:
% 10.07.2008
WP(C) No.9942, 8221, 8222/06 Page No.1 of 8
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Petitioners, Virender Singh Negi, Naresh Kumar and
Brijesh Kumar have approached this Court by 3 different petitions
but have predicated their stand on near similar pleas. All 3 pray
that letter dated 1.4.2006 issued by Ramjas College appointing
them on purely contractual basis for a period of one year to the
post in Central Computer Laboratory, (offered to Virender Singh
Negi and Naresh Kumar) and the post in the Internet Section
offered to Brijesh Kumar be quashed for the reason, they allege
mala fide in dispensing their service taken on ad-hoc basis as
Laboratory Attendants in the regular pay scale.
2. Virender Singh Negi alleges that his father died in the
year 2000 and on compassionate basis, with an assurance that
he would be regularly absorbed, he was appointed as a
Laboratory Attendant on ad-hoc basis. He alleges that he
continued to work as a Laboratory Attendant on ad-hoc basis and
drew his salray under the grade applicable to the post of
Laboratory Attendant till the offending letter was issued to him.
Petitioner, Naresh Kumar also asserts that his father died in the
year 2000 and that he was, on compassionate grounds, with an
assurance of subsequent regularization, offered the post of a
Laboratory Attendant on ad-hoc basis and that he worked
pursuant thereto till the offending letter was issued. He also
claims that while working on ad-hoc basis as a Laboratory
Attendant he was given wages in the grade applicable to the post
of a Laboratory Attendant. Petitioner, Brijesh Kumar claims that
his father took voluntary retirement from the College in October,
2001, being a patient of cancer, with an assurance that petitioner
would be appointed in the College. He asserts that on said
understanding he joined as a ad-hoc Laboratory Attendant under
the College with an assurance that his services would be
regularized.
3. All petitioners assert that persons who had joined after
them on ad-hoc basis, namely, Shikha Bhatia, Dhruv Narayan,
Vijay Dhanya, Ram Raj Pal and Gopal Singh Bangari have been
regularized as permanent employees by the College.
4. In a nutshell, petitioners firstly allege discrimination.
They further allege a right of permanent absorption under the
policy of compassionate appointment.
5. In the response filed by the college it is stated that the
petitioner Virender Singh Negi was appointed as a Laboratory
Attendant in the Department of Botany on purely ad-hoc basis
and that the other 2 petitioners were appointed as Laboratory
Attendant in the Department of Chemistry purely on ad-hoc basis
without any assurance that their services would be regularized. It
is denied that any assurance of employment under the scheme of
compassionate employment was ever given to the petitioners. It
is further asserted that the Government of India instructions
pertaining to compassionate appointment were directed to be
followed by a notice to the University of Delhi as per directive
issued by the University Grants Commission and that as per letter
No. Estab. II(i)/2000/Delhi-7 dated 24.4.2000 attention was drawn
to an office order dated 28.12.1999 issued by the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel
& Training, UOI which clearly mandated that where there are less
than 20 direct recruitments, they may be grouped together and
out of total number of vacancies, 5% may be filled up on
compassionate basis, subject to the condition that appointment
on compassionate grounds in such posts should not exceed one.
It is stated that employees had alreadly been appointed on
compassionate grounds and there was no possibility to fill any
further post on compassionate grounds.
6. Pertaining to Naresh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar it is
further informed that their elder brothers are appointed on
permanent basis in the College and are drawing the salary in
excess of Rs.10,000/- per month. It has further been informed
that family pension is being paid to the families of Virender Singh
Negi and Naresh Kumar and pension is being paid to father of
Brijesh Kumar.
7. Pertaining to appointment of Shikha Bhatia, Dhruv
Narayan, Vijay Dhanya, Ram Raj Pal and Gopal Singh Bangari it is
stated that a post of Junior Assistant in the office, one post of
Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology, and 3 posts
of Office Attendants in the office were notified. Applications were
invited from all eligible candidates. That petitioners did not
respond to the said notice inviting applications. Shikha Bhatia,
Dhruv Narayan, Vijay Dhanya, Ram Raj Pal and Gopal Singh
Bangari applied. Even others did. A Selection Committee was
constituted. Being empanelled, Shikha Bhatia was appointed as
a Junior Assistant in the office. Dhruv Narayan was appointed as
a Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology. Vijay
Dhanya, Ram Raj Pal and Gopal Singh Bangari were appointed as
Office Attendants.
8. It may be noted that the petitioners have not filed a
rejoinder controverting the averments made by the College in the
counter affidavits filed in the 3 writ petitions.
9. Pertaining to the plea raised by all petitioners that
they are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds,
suffice would it be to state that as held by their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1994 SC
2148 LIC Vs. Asha Ram Chander Ambekar this Court cannot
direct the appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court
can merely direct consideration of the claim as per the policy of
compassionate appointment.
10. No doubt, where a person is wrongfully denied a claim,
the taint can be removed by directing the respondent to re-
consider the matter after ignoring the material found tainted by
the Court. Thus, the decision pertaining to compassionate
appointment can be looked into by a court within the parameters
of the policy of compassionate appointment.
11. Compassionate appointment is not an alternative
channel of appointment. The ethos of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate succor and relief to the
family of an employee who dies in harness and the family faces
financial crisis due to the death of sole bread winner. This aspect
was brought out with clarity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decision reported as 1994 (4) SCC 138 Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.
State of Haryana.
12. On this short ground alone, neither petitioner would be
entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis for the reason
family pension is being paid to 2 families i.e. the families of
Virender Singh and Naresh Kumar. Brijesh Kumar's father is
receiving pension in his own right. Further, undisputably the elder
brothers of Virender Singh and Naresh Kumar are in employment
of the College and are being paid monthly wages in excess of
Rs.10,000/-. The families are not facing financial crisis.
13. Even otherwise, the claim for compassionate
appointment has to be confined to the policy pertaining to
compassionate appointment. If there is a cap on the number of
posts which can be filled up on compassionate appointment, the
employer cannot be compelled to fill more posts in the quota. As
noted hereinabove, stand of the College that all posts within the
quota of compassionate appointment stand filled up has not been
controverted by the petitioners.
14. Thus, looked at from any angle, no case is made out to
direct the College to give employment to the petitioners on
regular basis under the compassionate appointment policy.
15. Pertaining to plea of discrimination vis-a-vis Shikha
Bhatia, Dhruv Narayan, Vijay Dhanya, Ram Raj Pal and Gopal
Singh Bangari, suffice would it be to state that said persons
responded to the advertisement issued by the College and
underwent the process of regular selection. For unexplainable
reasons, the petitioners chose not to respond to the
advertisement inviting applications for eligible candidates for
being appointed on regular basis.
16. I find no mala fide in offering contractual appointment
to the petitioners for the reason, as noted above, the posts to
which contractual appointment is offered are not the posts of
Laboratory Attendants. As noted above, the petitioners have
been offered contractual appointment in the Central Computer
Laboratory and the Internet Section.
17. As explained at the Bar by learned counsel for the
College, this has been so done pending creation of regular posts
in the Internet Section and the Central Computer Laboratory.
18. Before concluding, I may note that merely because
somebody has worked on ad-hoc basis under an employer would
not be a ground for regularization of his service. A Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has so held in the decision
reported as 2006 4 SCC 1 Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.
19. It has to be noted that in the instant case neither
petitioner has undergone the process of regular selection.
20. The petitions are dismissed.
21. No costs.
10th July, 2008 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
vg JUDGE
