Delhi High Court
Shakuntala vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 May, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.22673/2005
% Date of Decision: 09.05.2011
Shakuntala .... Petitioner
Through Nemo
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent
Through Ms. Anita Pandey, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th September,
2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench
in OA No. 2437/2004 titled as 'Shakuntala Vs. UOI and Ors.',
dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking
compassionate appointment after the death of her husband late Sh.
Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade-II, who died on 24th September,
2000.
2. The petitioner had challenged the communication dated
18th/23rd June, 2004 by which the respondents had rejected the
request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account
of non-availability of vacancy under 5% quota of compassionate
appointment. While rejecting the request of the petitioner, reliance
was also placed on DOP&T OM dated 5th May, 2003 prescribing the
maximum time limit of three years for making the request.
3. The petitioner had submitted a request on 25th October, 2000
for compassionate appointment after the demise of her husband, late
Sh. Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade II, who died on 24th September,
2000 leaving behind the petitioner and his three minor children. The
petitioner had filled a prescribed proforma seeking compassionate
appointment. According to her, as no action was taken despite
making various representations, she filed an original application
being OA No.343/2004, which was disposed of by the Central
Administrative Tribunal by order dated 20th February, 2004 directing
the respondents to dispose off her representation by passing a
detailed speaking order in the light of the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension within the time
limit prescribed therein.
4. Consequent to the directions of the Tribunal in OA
No.343/2004, the request of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment was declined and she was sent a communication dated
18th/23rd June, 2004, which was challenged by the petitioner by
filing OA No.2437/2004.
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondents had contested the claim
of the petitioner by contending that as per the vacancy position
worked out since the year 1995 and onwards, no vacancy was
available under 5% compassionate appointment quota, except the
one which arose in the year 1998, for which another deserving
candidate was appointed. After the year 1998 and up to 2000, no
vacancy had arisen under 5% quota for compassionate appointment,
and therefore, the meeting of Screening Committee was not held.
6. The respondents had further asserted that the meeting of the
Screening Committee was held on 11th July, 2003 when a vacancy
arose for the said quota in the year of 2002. The committee had
considered the cases of 29 dependants of the deceased Govt.
Servants including the case of the petitioner. After considering all the
aspects as per the DOP&T OM dated 9th October, 1998, the case of
Smt. Rama, respondent no. 5, dependant of another deceased Govt.
Servant for compassionate appointment was found to be more
deserving on merit and accordingly, the vacancy was filled by her.
The comparative financial position of the petitioner and Smt. Rama,
as given before the Tribunal is as under:-
Sl. Name DCRG CGEIS GPF Leave Family LIC Policy
No Encashment Pension
1. Smt. 99,828/- 38,482/- 37,032/- 79,585/- 2950/- 60,000/-
Shakuntla,
W/o Late
Sh. Samay
Chand
(Sr.No.19)
2. Smt. Rama, 52,920/- 17,405/- 17,325/- Nil 1275/- Nil
W/o Late
Sh. Sanjay
Kumar
(Sr.No.26)
7. In the circumstances, it was further contended that on 24th
February, 2005, a reply was filed by the respondents to the
averments and pleas raised in the original application. As no vacancy
was available and as the maximum period as contemplated under
DOP&T OM dated 5th May, 2003 had also expired, therefore, the case
of the petitioner was closed.
8. The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of
the parties and relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
(1998) 9 SCC 87, Cochin Dock Labour Board Vs. Leenamma Samuel
& Ors.; (2000) 6 SCC 495, Balbir Kaur Vs. SAIL, held that the
compassionate appointment cannot be considered out of turn and
can only be on the basis of the priority list which is prepared. The
Tribunal also noted that though there had been no vacancy since the
year 1998 till 2001, their cases were rightly considered along with
others in the next available vacancy in the year 2002, however, the
petitioner could not be given appointment on account of other more
deserving cases for compassionate appointment and thus, rejected
the petition of the petitioner against the communication dated
18th/23rd June, 2004, and declined the request of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment.
9. The matter was taken up for hearing on 4th May, 2011,
however, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was however, heard for some
time. On 4th May, 2011, no adverse order was passed against the
petitioner in the interest of justice and the matter was allowed to
remain on board in the category of Regular Matters.
10. Today again no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
MAY 09, 2011.
rs
