Shri Trilok Chand vs Union Of India And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 5197 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Writ Petition (Civil) No.13857/2009

%                              Date of Decision: 15.12.2009

Shri Trilok Chand                                              .... Petitioner
                               Through Ms.Priyanka M.Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                                         Versus

Union of India and others                                    .... Respondents
                               Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Central
                                       Government Standing Counsel for the
                                       UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                        YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                          NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                      NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The father of the petitioner had died while in service on 26th

December, 2000 and the petitioner had sought compassionate

appointment. However, his request for compassionate appointment was

declined by order dated 8th July, 2008 in terms of OM dated 5th May,

2003 as there had been no vacancy in the three years, i.e., 2000-01,

2001-02 & 2002-03. The application for compassionate appointment of

the petitioner was received by the respondents on 15th February, 2001.

An Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act, 1986 being OA No.2551 of 2008, Shri Trilok Chand v. Union of

India and others had been filed by the petitioner to challenge his non-

appointment on compassionate grounds, and to seek appointment on

compassionate ground, which has been dismissed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal by order dated 18th August, 2009 which is

challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the

compassionate appointment is to be given in cases where the family is

in indigent condition and deserves the immediate assistance against

financial destitution. Restriction of vacancies for compassionate

appointment to 5% vacancies also cannot be disputed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the fact and circumstances, it is also apparent that

the petitioner had passed Bachelor Degree in pursuance to an

examination held in April 2002 and he had applied earlier for

compassionate appointment by letter dated 9th January, 2001 to CIT,

Rohtak on compassionate basis for the post of LDC. Since the

petitioner had not even qualified the examination for Bachelor Degree

on 9th January, 2001, he was not eligible for appointment in the year

2000-2001.

The request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment

could be for considered for three years only. Since the father of the

petitioner died on 26th December, 2000 and the application for

compassionate appointment was made on 9th January, 2001, therefore,

the application could be considered during the year 2000-2001; 2001-

2002 and 2002-2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

application for compassionate appointment should have been

considered for three calendar years from the date of the application and

not for three recruitment years. Learned counsel is, however, unable to

show any rule or memorandum specifying that the application had to be

considered for three calendar years and not for the recruitment years.

Since the application is for the recruitment, the consideration has to be

during the recruitment years and not the calendar years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show

that there had been vacancies during the three recruitment years in the

North West region and, therefore, any vacancy released thereafter will

not enure to the advantage of the petitioner in the facts and

circumstances, nor the petitioner shall have any right for further

consideration of his application.

Reliance has also been placed by the respondents on the letter

dated 5th May, 2003 of DOP&T stipulating that the maximum number

of times a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering

compassionate appointment will be three years. It is contended that

compassionate appointment is not to be offered after three years,

because if a family could survive the state of destitution for reasonable

period, i.e., three years without support in the form of compassionate

appointment, it may no longer be in need of such a support after the

lapse of such period.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not

been able to make out any illegality or such irregularity in the order of

the Tribunal dated 18th August, 2009, which shall require interference

by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore requires no

consideration and it is dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

December 15, 2009                                     VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'