Navneet Kaushal, Rajni Kaushal vs Uoi, Ministry Of Defence Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 349 Del

7
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Date of decision: 21st January, 2010

+                       W.P.(C) 6440/2002


      NAVNEET KAUSHAL, RAJNI KAUSHAL           ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. M.M. Kalra, Adv.

                  versus


      UOI, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DELHI             ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the widow and the daughter of

the deceased Late Shri Jagjit Singh Kaushal making a prayer for giving

appointment on a suitable post to daughter of the deceased arrayed as

petitioner no.2 before us, on compassionate grounds. There is no dispute to the

material facts giving rise to the present petition and to the extent necessary,

they are briefly noticed hereinafter.

2. Late Shri Jagjit Singh Kaushal was employed as a Senior Chargeman

(SCM), with the Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi who

unfortunately expired on 17th October, 1994 while in service. His widow

Smt. Navneet Kaushal, petitioner no.1 herein made an application for provision

of employment to Kumari Rajni Kaushal, petitioner no.2 herein by an application

made on 21st November, 1994 for the post of LDC/Storekeeper. This application

was forwarded to the Army Headquarters on the 23rd May, 1995 through the

EME records for consideration by the competent authority.

3. The application for appointment on compassionate basis was required to

be assessed based on the economic distress of the family and suitability of the

applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. It is the case of the respondents that the application of the petitioners

was considered by the Ministry of Defence and an opinion was expressed on the

18th October, 1999 to the effect that the request made for appointment of the

petitioner no.2 could not be acceded to.

5. The decision of the respondent was communicated to the petitioners by a

communication dated 18th February, 2000.

6. The petitioners appear to have represented by way of representation

dated 18th July, 2001 to the respondents. This representation of the petitioners

was also rejected by the competent authority and the decision was

communicated by a letter dated 8th August, 2001.

7. On a direction issued by this court, the respondents have placed the

original records of the case before us which contain a rejection of the

subsequent representations of the petitioner by an order dated 7th August,

2002.

8. It appears that in the meantime, the son of the deceased employee Shri

Vikram Singh Kaushal also made representation to the respondents. This

representation of the son was rejected by a letter dated 17th September, 2002.

9. Aggrieved by the rejection of these representations, the present writ

petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the rejection inter alia on the

ground of arbitrariness.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

original record which has been produced pursuant to our directions. It needs no

elaboration that so far as the appointment on compassionate basis is

concerned, family of the deceased employee does not have any vested right to

the same.

11. It has been held that the object of such appointment is to ameliorate the

distress of the dependents of a deceased employee who has died in harness

and the purpose is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and financial

distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the bread earning member of

the family. The whole purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to

ensure that the family of a deceased employee gets immediate succour and

relief.

12. There is no dispute to the existence of a policy for appointment on

compassionate basis which is the followed by the respondents. However, it is

pointed out that in terms of the DOP&T letter dated 9th October, 1998,

compassionate appointment is given only upto 5% of the total vacancies falling

in a year for Group `C' & `D' posts of employees expiring in harness.

13. So far as the assessment for eligibility to such appointment is concerned,

the record which has been produced before us and as stated in the counter

affidavit, disclose that such appointments are offered to the most deserving

cases whose economic conditions are assessed on the extreme need of the

family based on the assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased

employee as per the Government of India instructions. Amongst others, the

respondents took into consideration the following factors while considering the

application:-

"(a) Size of the family including ages of children of deceased/medically retired Government servants.

(b) Amount of terminal benefits received under various schemes.

          (c)    Amount of family pension.
          (d)    Liabilities in terms of unmarried daughters etc.
          (e)    Earning member(s) supporting/son supporting the family.
          (f)    Movable/immovable property and income thereof."

14. So far as the family of the deceased Shri Jagjit Singh Kaushal is

concerned, it is on record that the same consists of his widow-petitioner no.1;

two married and employed daughters; one son and the petitioner no.2 who is

the youngest child of the deceased. The record discloses that the petitioner

no.1 has filed an affidavit with the respondent authorities disclosing right, title

and interest in a plot of 70 sq. yards.

P. It is submitted by Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned counsel for the respondents

that only the first and second child of the deceased employee is considered for

appointment on compassionate basis. However, no such reason is disclosed in

the rejection of the petitioner's application in the orders which have been

assailed before us. The record also does not disclose any element of financial

penury being faced by the family. There is no disclosure as to the status of

employment of the son of the deceased other than a vague averment to the

effect that he was not under the control of the petitioner no.1. This statement

does not support lack of employment.

15. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 5th February, 2009, it was

pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 had

been placed at serial no.8 of the list prepared by the respondents having regard

to the date on which the applications for appointment on compassionate basis

were made. It was submitted by the petitioners that subsequently, without any

justification, the respondents have shifted her to serial no.9 and for this reason,

she has been denied appointment.

16. Perusal of the records of the respondents disclose that one Kumari

Kamlesh, daughter of deceased Shri Mohinder Singh along with her mother Smt.

Shakuntla Devi had filed an O.A. No.53/1996 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal praying for appointment on compassionate basis. She had contended

that she had submitted an application dated 12th May, 1989 for appointment on

compassionate basis but she was wrongfully not being considered for

appointment on compassionate basis. By an order passed on 26 th May, 1996,

the Central Administrative Tribunal had disposed of this original application

directing the respondent to register the claim of Kumari Kamlesh Kumari on the

waiting list of persons seeking appointment on compassionate ground. In these

circumstances, Kumari Kamlesh was placed above the petitioner who had

applied on 26th June, 1995 giving her the benefit of having made the application

on 20/26th June, 1995. It is further clarified that it was in these circumstances

that Kumari Kamlesh was placed above the petitioner for the purpose of

consideration for appointment on compassionate basis against the 5% of the

available vacancies.

17. Certainly, no fault can be found with this action of the respondents.

18. In view of the principles noticed above, it is to be borne in mind that

application for appointment on compassionate basis would require to be

considered expeditiously and the issue of immediacies of the family need on

expiry of the deceased employee is required to be borne in mind. Almost 15

years have passed since the expiry of the employee of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to inform their status

even as on date. The respondents have justified the circumstances in which the

petitioner was not entitled to appointment on compassionate basis under the

applicable policy. No legally tenable ground in support of the plea of

arbitrariness or illegality have been pointed out.

For all these circumstances, we find no merits in this writ petition which is

hereby dismissed.

                                          GITA MITTAL,J


                                          VIPIN SANGHI, J
      JANUARY     21, 2010
      aa