Delhi High Court
Smt. Sunita vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 28 April, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.8575/2007
Date of Decision : 28.4.2009
SMT. SUNITA ......Petitioner
Through : Mr.Shafiullah,
Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through : Ms.Zubeda Begum,
Advocate
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. Rule with the consent of the parties.
2. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This is the
second writ petition filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by
the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by Sh.S.N.Shrivastava, Joint
Commissioner for Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
3. The brief facts are stated that the petitioner was married to
one Sh.Suresh Kumar, who died on 2nd May, 2005 while in
service. He had served the Delhi Police for a period of more than
22 years. She was purportedly living separately for a period of 5
to 6 years prior to the death of her husband though there was an
allegation of dissertation against her. The petitioner did not have
any issue from the said wedlock. Her parents are also stated to
have expired. The petitioner accordingly sought an appointment
on compassionate ground by Delhi Police which request of the
petitioner was turned down on the ground that the petitioner was
living separately and was given maintenance by her husband @
Rs.1,300/- per month. In addition to this, she had been granted
the other terminal benefits like family pension while as the GPF/
gratuity amount were granted to the mother of the deceased
employee. The petitioner did not have anybody dependent on
her. The request for compassionate appointment was turned
down primarily by the respondent on the ground that she was
living separately from the deceased.
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of her
application filed a writ petition bearing No.12605/2006 which
came to be decided by this Court on 21.8.2007 by giving
direction to the respondent to consider the request of the
petitioner afresh taking in view all the circumstances and pass
an order. Liberty was given to the petitioner, in case she still
feels aggrieved, to assail the said order.
5. The order dated 15.10.2007 is the order which has now
been passed by the respondents in pursuance to the earlier
round of litigation. The petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the
said order afresh on the ground that the respondents have once
again repeated the old reasoning that the petitioner was living
separately from her husband and rejected the application for
appointment on compassionate ground. It has been also stated
in the writ petition that merely on account of the fact that the
petitioner is living separately or that family pension has been
granted, would not be a ground for denying the benefit of
compassionate appointment especially in the light of the fact that
she is not only a widow but does not have parents also.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the order dated 15.10.2007.
7. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 15.10.2007
passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police. The law regarding
the grant of appointment on compassionate ground is very well
settled in catena of authorities. The broad parameters of grant of
compassionate appointment is governed by the following
principles:-
(i) The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of vested right and it is held repeatedly that
it is not a normal mode of recruitment.
(ii) The ground of compassionate appointment is given to a
person only to tide over the initial shock suffered by the family
on account of sudden and untimely demise of the earning
member of the family.
(iii) While considering the question on compassionate
appointment merely on account of the fact that the proposed
beneficiary or his family members have received the terminal
benefit or compensation should not be the ground for denial of
benefit of compassionate appointment.
(iv) The total number of vacancies fallen to the share to be
filled up by direct recruitment in the quota of Groups 'C' and 'B'
on compassionate appointment should not normally exceed
maximum of 5% of the number of vacancies at a given point of
time.
8. Taking in view all these broad parameters, if we examine
the order which has been passed, it has taken into consideration
not only the factum that the petitioner was living separately from
the deceased employee for a period of 5 to 6 years prior to the
date of death but also the fact that she is receiving a sum of
Rs.4,530/- per month on account of family pension. It has been
noticed in the order that the petitioner is alone and is present by
residing with her brother at A-422, Dakshin Puri, Delhi and thus
she is not carrying any liability and the aforesaid amount is
sufficient enough for a person to maintain herself.
9. In addition to this, the impugned order passed takes note
of the legal position as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the
case titled Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana 1994
(4) SCC 138 that appointment on compassionate ground cannot
be considered as a matter of vested right. This benefit is granted
only to tide over the initial shock of financial crisis.
10. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that not only
it is a reasoned order but it is an order which has been passed
assessing the pros and cons of the matter and the petitioner's
case has not been found to be a case fit to be granted on
compassionate ground. Accordingly, I do not find any
perversity and illegality in the order or in the decision making
process which followed by the respondents.
10. The writ petition is in my considered opinion is without any
merit and the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 28, 2009
RN
