Delhi High Court
Sushila Devi & Another vs Union Of India & Others on 12 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.3225/2010
% Date of Decision: 12.05.2010
Sushila Devi & another .... Petitioners
Through Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India & others .... Respondents
Through Mr.D.S.Mahendru & Mr.Jayendra,
Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
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 NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners, widow and son of Late Sh.Banwar Pal Singh, had
sought compassionate appointment which was declined by the
respondents, which order was challenged by them in O.A.No.417 of
2009, titled as 'Smt.Sushil Devi and another v. Union of India, through
Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation,'
which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi by order dated 17th November, 2009, which is
challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
The petitioners had contended that petitioner No.1 is widow who
has been put in considerable hardship after the death of her husband
who was working in Government of India Press at Aligarh. It was
contended that petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased who has his own
family to support and in the circumstances, whatsoever money was
received by petitioner No.1 as terminal dues were insufficient and she
has a very modest and small house in the Village.
The petitioners contended that there are another 39 vacancies of
Mazdoors, which can be taken into account to reconsider the
petitioners' case instead of rejecting the same.
Before the Tribunal, the pleas and contentions of the petitioners
were contested on the ground that a sum of Rs.4 lacs as lump sum
payment was given to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 is also getting
a family pension at Rs.2500/- per month. It was also pleaded that
petitioner No.1 has an immovable property in the form of a house and
she also has some lands, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for
compassionate appointment. The claim of compassionate appointment
was also contested on the ground that in the waiting list there are
already 151 persons and even if the name of petitioner No.1 is put in
the said list, her name would be at serial No.152 and there would not
be any possibility of petitioner No.1 getting appointment to Group 'D'
post within a period of three years. In the circumstances, it was
contended that the petitioners are not entitled for compassionate
appointment.
The Tribunal considered all these facts and noticed that the
petitioner no.1 was paid lump sum amount on demise of her husband
and she is getting family pension, and she also owns an immovable
property in the form of a house and some land and declined to interfere
with the order of respondents declining compassionate appointment to
petitioner No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same pleas and
contentions which were raised before the Tribunal. This cannot be
disputed that compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of
appointment. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed
as matter of right and such appointment cannot be made applicable to
all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased employee. A claim for appointment on compassionate basis
has been considered as reasonable and permissible keeping in view the
sudden crisis occurring in the family of an employee who has served the
state and died while in service. However the rules, regulations,
administrative instructions and orders in this behalf must stand the
test on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Appointment on compassionate basis is not another source of
recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement
taking into consideration the effect of the death of the employee while in
service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such
cases, the object is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial
crisis. But again such appointments on compassionate ground have to
be made only in accordance with the rules, regulations or
administrative instructions and taking into consideration the family
condition of the family of the deceased. Appointment on compassionate
ground cannot be claimed as matter of right and such appointment
cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the
nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. A claim for
appointment on compassionate basis has been considered as
reasonable and permissible keeping in view the sudden crisis occurring
in the family of an employee who has served the state and died while in
service. However the rules, regulations, administrative instructions and
orders in this behalf must stand the test on the touchstone of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Appointment on compassionate
basis is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to
the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the effect of the
death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any
means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to
get over the sudden financial crisis. But again such appointments on
compassionate ground have to be made only in accordance with the
rules, regulations or administrative instructions and taking into
consideration the family condition of the family of the deceased. This is
not the case of the petitioners that the compassionate appointment has
been declined to them in violation of any rules, regulations or
administrative instruction. While considering the case of compassionate
employment, it is to be kept in mind that it is not unduly unfair to the
rights of those other persons who are eligible to seek appointment
against a post which would have been available but for the provision
enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds to the
dependents of the deceased employee.
The petitioner no.1 was paid a lump sum amount on the demised
of her husband. She is also getting family pension. Her son petitioner
no.2 is also gainfully employed. The petitioner no.1 also has a house,
though it is stated to be a modest house. She also has some land in her
name. In the circumstances, petitioner no.1 cannot be construed to be
distress though she may be having inconveniences. The petitioner no.2
cannot absolve himself by alleging that he has his own family to look
after them. In the totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioners
have not been able to make out a case for compassionate appointment
for petitioner no.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the status of the
petitioners, the decision of the respondents not to offer compassionate
appointment to the petitioners cannot be faulted, nor it can be held that
order of the Tribunal suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or such
perversity which shall entail any interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ
petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 12, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'
