Delhi High Court
Geeta Devi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 September, 2009
Author: Sunil Gaur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on : September 04, 2009
Judgment delivered on : September 15, 2009
+ W.P. (C) No.5219/2008
% Geeta Devi ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain and Ms. Sonia
Aggarwal, Advocates
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Ms. Raman Oberoi, Sr. Panel Counsel
for Union of India
Mr. R. Nanavaty, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local
papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. Petitioner's husband was a Chowkidar with the Respondent -
Board on regular basis and he had died in harness on 17th May,
2004. On 10th June, 2004, Petitioner sought appointment on
compassionate basis on the available vacancy in the Group-D
employees of the Respondent - Board vide application (Annexure-F).
W.P. (C) No.5219/2008 Page 1
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite the Representation/
several reminders by the Petitioner, there is no response from the
Respondents.
3. In this petition, direction is sought to the Respondents to
consider sympathetically the application of the Petitioner for
appointment on compassionate basis on any available vacancy. In
response to this petition, Respondent - Cantonment Board, Delhi
Cantt., in its counter affidavit, has taken a stand that the Ministry of
Defence has intimated that the ceiling of 5% prescribed for
compassionate appointment in the Scheme is based upon ruling of
the Apex Court and it cannot be relaxed in any case.
4. Respondent No. 1 and 2, in their counter affidavit, have relied
upon Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th
May 2003, which prescribes the ceiling of 5% quota in the direct
recruitment and the time limit of three years for making appointment
on compassionate ground. In the additional affidavit of 1st May, 2009,
filed by the Respondent - Board, the details of the compassionate
appointments made from 1st January, 2004 have been given. Another
additional affidavit of 29th July, 2009, has been filed by Respondent -
Board wherein it has been stated that the quota of 5% in direct
recruitment on the Class IV posts stands already exhausted, as four
appointments on compassionate basis, as per the seniority, has been
W.P. (C) No.5219/2008 Page 2
made in the year 2004 and thereafter, till date, no appointment on
compassionate ground has been made by the Respondent - Board.
5. After filing of the aforesaid additional affidavits, by the
Respondent - Board, a rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner,
wherein there is no challenge to the Office Memorandum
No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th May 2003, filed alongwith
the additional affidavit by Respondent - Board.
6. The plea put forth on behalf of the Petitioner, in substance, is
that explanation given by the Respondents to deny appointment on
compassionate ground to the Petitioner is untenable as the same is
contrary as Respondent No. 3 had recommended Petitioner's case,
whereas its rejection by Respondent No. 1 and 2 is the usual
bureaucratic manner, which is unjustified. However, Respondents
negate the aforesaid plea by asserting that Petitioner's case was not
recommended but was merely forwarded to the contesting
Respondents.
7. After having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material on record and the decision of the Apex Court in "Union of
India vs. Joginder Sharma", 2002 (7) SCALE 141, referred to in
Communication (Annexure R-3/3), this Court finds that there is no
challenge to the Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D)
dated the 5th May 2003 by the Petitioner, and therefore, the relief
prayed for in this petition cannot be granted.
W.P. (C) No.5219/2008 Page 3
8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed with the
observation that it will be open to the Petitioner to raise a challenge
the aforesaid Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated
the 5th May 2003 and then to seek the relief as prayed for herein.
9. No costs.
Sunil Gaur, J.
September 15, 2009
pkb
W.P. (C) No.5219/2008 Page 4
