Delhi High Court
Smt.Khagoti Devi vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.9693/2009
% Date of Decision: 08.01.2010
Smt.Khagoti Devi .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India & Ors .... Respondents
Through Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
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 petitioner has sought appointment of her son on
compassionate ground contending that her husband while on duty had
fallen seriously ill and he was absent from duty and his absence was
treated as resignation. It is asserted by the petitioner that while in
service both the kidneys of her husband were damaged and he was on
daily dialysis. In the circumstances it is pleaded that her husband
ought to had been retired on medical grounds, however, he was not
retired and he superannuated and after he superannuated one of the
son should be given appointment on compassionate ground.
The husband of the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P(C)
No.5520/2003 seeking a compensation of Rs.30 lakhs and a prayer
that he be allowed to retain the Railway quarter on nominal rent. The
husband of the petitioner had also sought that one of his son be given
appointment with the respondent so that his treatment could continue.
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the husband of
petitioner to take such action as permissible in law in respect of his
claim for recovery of compensation for Rs.30,00,000/- and for the claim
of appointment of one of his son in the Railways.
The husband of the petitioner had, however, passed away on 6th
April, 2007. After the death of the petitioner's husband an application
was filed before the Tribunal for compassionate appointment which has
been declined on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was
never declared medically unfit during his entire service and he
superannuated and he did not raise this dispute till the date of his
retirement and he continued to get salary and other perks during his
employment. The Tribunal also noted that only after retirement the plea
of sickness and compassionate appointment had been raised.
The petitioner has therefore, challenged the order dated 3rd June,
2009 passed in O.A No.2665/2008, Smt.Khagoti Devi v. Union of India
and ors. declining plea of the petitioner for appointment of her son on
compassionate ground.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
husband of the petitioner should have been medically examined by an
appropriate board which was to be constituted by the respondent. The
learned counsel has, however, not been able to disclose as to what steps
were taken by the deceased husband of the petitioner on account of
alleged non constitution of the medical board. This also cannot be
disputed by the petitioner that despite the alleged sickness her
husband continued to attend the office and discharge his duties in
normal course till he superannuated on attaining the age of
superannuation. Compassionate appointment was also sought almost
two years after superannuation.
The Tribunal has relied on State of J&K and Ors v. Sajad Ahmed
Mir, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1195 holding that once it is proved that despite
the death of sole breadwinner, the family survived and substantial
period is over, it is not appropriate to carve an exception to the normal
rule of appointment and to show favour to such a person or his prodigy
ignoring many other deserving candidates. This cannot be disputed that
the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate succor
and relief to the family who is shocked by the sudden death of the sole
breadwinner of the family and the family is in extreme penury on
account of death of breadwinner of the family.
The husband of the petitioner had passed away on 6th April, 2007
almost two years after his superannuation. In the circumstances, there
are no grounds to grant compassionate appointment to the son of the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances. There is no illegality or
irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd June, 2009 entailing
any interference by this Court.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
January 8, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
