Shri Satpal vs Delhi Jal Board
2009 Latest Caselaw 920 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



+                           W.P.(C) NO.7685/2008


%                                               Reserved on : 07.1.2009
                                           Date of Decision : 20.03.2009


SHRI SATPAL                                              .... Petitioner

                       Through Ms.Neelam Tiwari for Mr.Rajiv Agarwal,
                               Advocate

                                  Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD                                          .... Respondent

                       Through Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal with
                               Mr.K.A.Singh, Advocates.


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI


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


V. K. SHALI, J.

*

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order

dated 20th June, 2006 passed by Sh.Prakash Chander, Asstt.

Commissioner (General) Delhi Jal Board by virtue of which his

application was rejected by the respondent, for being appointed on

compassionate ground because of the fact that the widow of the

deceased Dalip Singh, an employee of the respondent had received a

payment of Rs.3,78,000/- on account of pensionary benefits. It was

observed that the said sum was sufficient in the view of the department,

for meeting the requirement of the family. This view was formed by the

Screening Committee which considered the application for

compassionate appointment. In addition to this, it was also observed

in the impugned order that there are more deserving cases to be

appointed in the 5% quota of posts which are allocated/earmarked for

being appointed on compassionate ground.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner

had actually got a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal-III from the

Government of Delhi on 20th October, 2005 in the following terms:-

"Whether the demand of Sh. Satpal S/o Late Shri Dalip Singh for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable Class-IV post on regular basis in proper pay scale is legal and justified and if so, to what relief he is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. This reference was decided by the learned Industrial Tribunal on

24th March, 2006 with the observation that the respondent

/Management had agreed to consider the case of the

petitioner/workman in terms of their policy and accordingly directions

were given to the Management that they may consider the application of

the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. The petitioner thereafter, is purported to have made an

application stating his claim for appointment on compassionate ground,

on the ground that his father Sh.Dalip Singh, an employee of the

respondent/Delhi Jal Board had died on 23rd June, 1997 while as in

normal course, he would have superannuated on 31st December, 2001.

His last drawn salary was Rs.750/- per month ** and the amount which

was released to the widow of the deceased employee was to the tune of

Rs.3,78,000/-. The request of the petitioner was considered by the

Screening Committee in the light of the policy for appointment on

compassionate ground but the Screening Committee did not find the

case of the petitioner fit to be recommended to the Competent Authority

to grant him appointment on humanitarian ground. This decision was

arrived at by the Screening Committee primarily on account of two

reasons:-

1) That a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- was given to the family of the

deceased employee and if as a rule pension is payable to the family of

the deceased employee then the Screening Committee did not consider

it fit to grant compassionate appointment.

2) The total number of posts which are earmarked with the

respondent/workman for being appointed on compassionate ground are

only 5% of the posts and there are more than one case, which was

considered by the Screening Committee and keeping in view the age of

the employee, the number of children, the ages of the family members,

and payment received by them and the family condition etc. at the time

of death of the deceased employee, are various aspects which are

considered by the Screening Committee and on the said parameters, the

Screening Committee was of the opinion that there are more deserving

cases for being considered favourably for appointment on

compassionate ground as compared to that of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment was passed, which is being assailed.

5. The respondent filed its counter affidavit and contested the claim

of the petitioner on merits. It was stated in the counter affidavit that

Sh.Dalip Singh, deceased father of the petitioner was working as a

„Belder‟ and he was removed from services on 17th March, 1994 and

after termination of his service, he expired on 23rd June, 1997. The son

of the deceased employee filed an application claiming the employment

on compassionate ground after expiry of more than seven years while as

there were no major liabilities. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder

to this.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered

the record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the two

grounds on which the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the

Screening Committee are not germane to the policy for appointment on

compassionate ground. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to

the policy, which has been placed on record. It was also urged by the

learned counsel that so far as the receipt of payment of Rs.3,78,000/-

by the family members of the deceased employee are concerned that

could not be a ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner.

Reliance in this regard was placed in case titled as Govind Prakash

Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. (2005) 10

SCC 289, wherein it was observed that the receipt of the amount by the

family members of the deceased employee as a onetime amount or by

way of family pension on account of terminal benefits are irrelevant

considerations for rejecting the claim for appointment on

compassionate ground.

8. This was a case in which the employee had died untimely in

harness and the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts

of the present case. In the present case, the deceased according to the

petitioner himself was left with only 3/4 years of service, while as in the

case cited, the employee had died in harness.

9. No doubt, the Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma‟s case (supra)

has been held that the receipt of pensionary benefits or the legal

dues/terminal benefits of the family of the deceased could not be the

ground for rejection of the claim of party for being considered on

compassionate appointment but certainly it has not been observed that

merely because the payments have been received by the legal heirs of

the deceased employee, the other factors need not be taken into

consideration for grant of compassionate appointment. There are

catena of authorities by the Apex Court wherein it has been observed

that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Reliance in this regard is place on General Manager, State Bank of

India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain 2008 (8) SCC 475. It is observed by the

Apex Court that it is a humanitarian help which is granted by the Court

to the family in a given state of circumstances so as to enable the family

to tide over the initial set back which it might have suffered on account

of the untimely demise of the earning member of the family. In State of

Bihar Vs. Dr.Braj Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 106, the Apex

Court held that compassionate appointment and is only a concession

and not a right. While doing so, the age of the deceased employee, the

number of family members, their respective ages, their financial dependency

on the deceased employee, the factum of the liabilities of the family of the

deceased employee like the number of unmarried children especially the

daughters, non-availability of the earning in alternative earning member in the

family are the grounds which have to be taken into account. In State of

Haryana Vs. Rani Devi & Anr. 1996 (5) SCC 308, the Apex Court set aside

the order of compassionate appointment passed by the High Court after about

15 years of death on the ground that in case initial period of death has been

overcome compassionate appointment can ought not be granted.

10. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the factum of the

deceased employee having died in 1997 and the number of his family

members is not in dispute. The elder son of the petitioner is an earning

member of the family. There are no liabilities of the family and so far as the

petitioner is concerned, he is a able bodied person who can work and find his

own way of making both ends meet and also support his mother. It is in this

background that the factum of the receipt of the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- by

the widow of the deceased employee was taken into consideration by the

Screening Committee while considering the case of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment. I do not consider that there was anything

improper, irrational or unjustified in arriving at such a decision by the

Screening Committee in taking the factum of payment of the terminal benefits

having been received as one of the factors and not a sole ground for rejecting

the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

11. So far as the question of total number of 5% of the vacancies being

reserved for being filled up on compassionate appointment are concerned,

the challenge is not to the percentage of vacancies which have been reserved

and the only observation of the Screening Committee is to the effect that there

are more deserving case where such a relief needs to be given rather than in

case of the petitioner. As has been stated by the Apex Court that appointment

on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and it is also not a normal

procedure of recruitment, therefore, at a given point of time when the

Screening Committee examines the applications for appointment on

compassionate appointment, the comparative merit/need of the family is

bound to be seen. This is what preciously has been done by the Screening

Committee.

12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

stand which has been taken by the respondent that there was a delay of seven

years in approaching the respondent for the purpose of grant of assistance by

way of compassionate appointment cannot be held against the petitioner on

account of the fact that the policy of compassionate appointment formulated

by the respondent themselves lays down that belated request for

compassionate appointment can be considered with a time gap of five years

or so and they were not aware as to whether there was any such policy from

the respondents as they were not very well educated.

13. Be that as it may, even though the petitioner might have approached

the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground after a lapse of

seven years, the case of the petitioner was not rejected only on that score but

the fact remains that as on date nearly 12 years have gone by and if the family

of the deceased employee including the petitioner have been able to survive

during these 11 years, there is absolutely no justification for granting the

benefit on compassionate appointment to the petitioner after setting aside

the impugned order passed by the respondents after due consideration by the

Screening Committee, which has been so formed for this purpose.

14. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the case of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground much less any infirmity

in the impugned order dated 20.6.2006 passed by the respondents by virtue of

which the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is without merit and the same is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

MARCH 20, 2009                                             V.K. SHALI, J.
RN