Delhi High Court
Harish Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 25 February, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1310/2011
Harish Kumar ....Petitioner
Through Md. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate.
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Manoj Kumar Rathi, Advocate
for Mr. V.K. Tandon for respondent 1.
Mr. Sumit Pushkarna and Mr. Jitendra
Kumar for Delhi Jal Board.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 25.02.2011
The petitioner Harish Kumar's father Prem Chand was an
employee of Delhi Jal Board. He expired on 19th March, 2003, leaving
behind three sons including the petitioner and one daughter and a
widow. By letter dated 8th July, 2003, widow of late Prem Chand made
an application for compassionate appointment of petitioner, her
youngest son. The petitioner was asked to appear for interview on 20th
February, 2004, but no appointment letter was issued. It is the case of
the respondent that his case for compassionate appointment was
rejected vide letter dated 23rd February, 2005. It is the contention of
the petitioner that this letter was never received by him. However, it is
admitted that after the call letter and interview held on 20th February,
2004, the petitioner had not enquired and had made a representation
on 18th December, 2007. Thereafter, he wrote two more
representations on 18th June, 2008 and 17th November, 2009.
2. On the basis of information that there were 24 vacant group D
posts, the petitioner made a complaint with the Public Grievance
Commission, Department of Administrative Reforms, on 17th January,
2010. Before the Commission, it was stated by the respondent that it
was not possible to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner
due to the ceiling of 5%. The Commission closed the matter on 24th
September, 2010. Thereupon, the petitioner filed OA No. 3708/2010,
which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30th November,
2010.
3. It is difficult to accept and believe that the petitioner was not
aware of the rejection of his application for compassionate
appointment, especially when he was earlier called for interview on 20th
February, 2004. As per the case of the petitioner, the next
representation was made only in December, 2007. Repeated
representations thereafter 2007 onwards, it is well settled, does not
confer a fresh cause of action or explains the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon scheme for
compassionate appointment, 1998, framed by Department of
Personnel and Training, Government of India and it was submitted that
even delayed applications upto 5 years or so, can be entertained. The
object and purpose of compassionate appointment has been
considered by the Supreme Court in SBI versus Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC
571; SBI versus Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475; Santosh Kumar Dubey
versus State of U.P. (2009) 6 SCC 481 and it has been observed that the
compassionate appointment is made to tide over untimely death of a
family member which suddenly plunges the grieved family into
immediate and unexpected penury and financial despair.
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and
is not a source for recruitment. There is a ceiling of 5%. The most
deserving and hard cases have to be given preference over others. As
per the application for compassionate appointment, the deceased had
three married sons but the younger son i.e. the petitioner was
unemployed. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has stated that
he was 30 years old, in the application filed before the Administrative
Tribunal. After the interview by the screening committee on 20th
February, 2004, the petitioner waited and made a fresh representation
on 18th December, 2007 after a gap of more than 3 years.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 25, 2011
kkb
