Delhi High Court
Smt.Bimla Devi vs Under Secretary (Admn.), ... on 17 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.3356/2010 & CM No.6746/2010
% Date of Decision: 17.05.2010
Smt.Bimla Devi .... Petitioner
Through Mr.B.S.Choudhary, Advocate.
Versus
Under Secretary (Admn.), Rashtrapati Bhawan, .... Respondent
New Delhi
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Mr.Anuj Aggarwal &
Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocates.
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 petitioner has sought compassionate appointment for her
younger son after the demise of her husband, late Sh.Sunder Singh,
which was declined by the respondent, which was challenged by her in
petition being T.A.No.1347 of 2009, titled as 'Smt.Bimla Devi v. Under
Secretary (Admn), Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi', which has been
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi by order dated 27th November, 2009 which is challenged by the
petitioner in the present writ petition.
The petitioner had contended before the Tribunal that her
husband Late Sh. Sunder Singh expired on 6th August, 2002, while
serving as an Assistant in the President's Secretariat. He was survived
by his widow, the petitioner, two sons and a married daughter. The
petitioner is a Scheduled Caste and her elder son Sh. Jitendra Kumar
submitted an application for appointment as a LDC on compassionate
ground, but was rejected on 10th September, 2002. The application of
the elder son of the petitioner was declined on the ground because his
wife was working and was getting emoluments of Rs.10,000/- per
month, and the petitioner had been sanctioned an amount of Rs.7.41
lacs and family pension of Rs.3538/- per month plus usual Dearness
relief. The application of the elder son of the petitioner was also declined
as there was no vacancy under 5% quota for compassionate
appointment.
After the application for compassionate appointment of the elder
son was declined, the petitioner filed another application dated 11th
September, 2002 requesting for compassionate appointment of her
second son Sh. Rajeev Kumar on the ground that her elder son is
married and is not living with them and the petitioner has no
connection with the family of her elder son.
The request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of
her younger son Sh. Rajeev Kumar was not considered, therefore, the
writ petition being W.P. (C) No.4161 of 2006 was filed in Delhi High
Court, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to
consider all the material facts for the decision of petitioner's application
within 10 weeks.
Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court in Writ
Petition (C) No.4161 of 2006, order dated 27th May, 2006 was passed by
the respondent, which was again challenged by the petitioner in
another Writ Petition (C) No.5682 of 2007, which was withdrawn by the
petitioner on 4th December, 2008 with liberty to file a fresh petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 6954 of 2009
in the High Court, which was later on transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
The petitioner in her petition claimed compassionate
appointment on the ground that her family is in indigent circumstances
and the respondent has erred in assessing her financial position, as her
second son Sh.Rajeev Kumar has no source of income. The petitioner
also alleged discrimination inasmuch as the son of late Sh.A.H.Qureshi
was granted compassionate appointment though his widow got her
higher terminal benefits and the family pension.
The plea of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was
challenged by the respondent contending that the elder son of the
petitioner had sought compassionate appointment, which was declined
on the ground that the petitioner had received Rs.7,41,673/-by way of
DCRG, GPF Leave Encashment and CGEIS and that her son was
working in a private company and her daughter-in-law is working in a
Government sector as a Stenographer with Power Financial Corporation
Ltd.
The respondent also highlighted that just after rejection of the
request of the elder son dated 10th September, 2002, the petitioner filed
another application dated 11th September, 2002 for compassionate
appointment of her younger son Sh. Rajeev Kumar. The Tribunal, while
declining the request of the petitioner by order dated 27th November,
2009 noted the object of the Scheme of compassionate appointment as
laid down in DoPT's OM dated 9th October, 1998 contemplating that the
object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate
grounds to a dependant family member of the Government servant
dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving
his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the
family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution
and to help them to get over the emergency. The Tribunal also
considered that the factors that are relevant for grant of compassionate
appointment to the petitioner were considered after which her
application was rejected.
Regarding the discrimination, the Tribunal noted difference
between the two cases and held that the cases of discrimination
contending by the petitioner were distinguishable. The Tribunal also
referred to and relied on 'Smt. Savitri Devi & another v. Union of India
& others', [W.P. (C) No.4733-34/2004] decided on 5th October, 2005.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically
contended that she has been discriminated inasmuch as the legal
representatives of Late Sh. A.H. Qureshi were granted compassionate
appointment but in her case it had been declined. The learned counsel
for the petitioner, however, has not been able to deny that the widow of
Late Sh. A.H. Qureshi had one damaged lung and the expenditure of
medical treatment was likely to go up in her case and both the sons of
Late Sh. A.H. Qureshi were not in employment and at that time, a
vacancy was available in contradistinction to the case of the petitioner,
who does not have any debilitating disease and one of her son and her
daughter-in-law are gainfully employed. Even the application for
appointment of her second son Sh.Rajeev Kumar was filed just after the
application for compassionate appointment of elder son of the petitioner
was rejected. The distinctions which have been elaborated and carved
out by the Tribunal cannot be faulted and the petitioner cannot claim
compassionate appointment for her younger son on the alleged ground
of discrimination. In Smt.Savitri Devi & another (Supra), it had been
held in para 13 which is as under:-
"13. Compassionate appointment, it is well settled, is not a
source of recruitment nor can it be claimed as a matter of
right. Courts and Tribunals while deciding cases of
compassionate appointments should not confer any
benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration as such
claims cannot be strictly upheld on touchstone of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Appointment on
compassionate grounds, therefore, should be ------- strictly in
accordance with the scheme/rules and regulations framed
for that purpose, such claims whenever made should be
reasonable and justified on the basis of sudden economic
crises occurring in a family, whose bread earner has died in
harness."
In the circumstances, the compassionate appointment is not to
be given when there is no financial hardship. Compassionate
appointment, it is well settled, not a source of a recruitment, nor it can
be claimed as a matter of right.
In the circumstances, the younger son of the petitioner is also
not entitled for compassionate appointment and the findings of the
Tribunal do not suffer from any such illegality, irregularity or perversity,
which is required to be corrected 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, therefore, dismissed.
All the pending applications are also dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 17, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'
