Delhi High Court
Somvati & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 13.04.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2060/2012
SOMVATI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. E.J. Varghese
For the Respondents : Ms. Barkha Babbar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in OA
No.2775/11 on 08.08.2011. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the order
dated 18.08.2006 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioners' case for
compassionate appointment on the death of Om Prakash, who died on 12.12.2001 had
been rejected. The petitioner No.1 is the widow of the late Om Prakash. Petitioner No.2
is the daughter of the late Om Prakash.
2. As mentioned above, Om Prakash died on 12.12.2001. Shortly thereafter, the
petitioners had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, that
appointment was not being given to either of the petitioners inasmuch as according to the
respondents there was no vacancy in the department within the compassionate quota of 5
per cent. The petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing No.
WP(C) 2515/2004. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.12.2004,
wherein the following direction was given:-
"We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and have also gone through the records. Since
5% quota is available for giving appointment on
compassionate ground, therefore, the case of the
petitioner could be considered at a later stage, as and
when vacancy arises with the respondents against the
aforesaid quota and against a post of group C or in
group D. Therefore as and when such vacancy arises
where the petitioner could be absorbed his case shall
be considered in accordance with law and in terms of
the existing policy of the respondents. In terms of the
aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of."
(underlining added)
3. Consequent to the said direction, although the period of 03 years since the death of
Om Prakash had elapsed, the respondents considered the case of appointment of the
petitioners on compassionate grounds. However, the case came to be rejected by virtue of
the order dated 18.08.2006. The reasoning adopted by the respondents for rejecting the
petitioners' claim to compassionate appointment has been set out in the said order dated
18.08.2006 as under:-
"And whereas, the objective of granting appointment
on compassionate grounds to a dependent family
member of a Govt. servant dying in harness leaving his
family in penury and without any means of livelihood,
is to relieve the family of the Govt. servant concerned
from financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. With this objective in view and in order to
determine the financial destitution/penurious condition
of the family, the Government has fixed the poverty
line as income of Rs.1767.20 for a family of five
members. In this context it is noticed that the widow
is, receiving the family pension of Rs.1895/- +
Rs.948/- as DP+ Rs.682/-, as DA (Total Rs.3525/-)
thereon per month. She has also received a sum of
Rs.184702/- as terminal benefits after the death of her
husband. Considering these aspect and the fact that
the family of the individual has survived and managed
for more than 4½ years after the demise of the husband
of the applicant, the case has been reviewed by the
competent authority and the case for appointment on
compassionate grounds is not covered under the
indigency criteria fixed by the Govt. Moreover,
compassionate appointment is made on the availability
of vacancy only in the Department within a ceiling of
5% of direct recruitment quota meant for the purpose
and that too within a maximum period of three years.
And whereas the Competent Authority has carefully
examined the facts of the case and recommendation of
the Board of Officers with due regard to the Govt
orders and also the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
case of Himachal Road Transport corporation v.
Dinesh Kumar on 7.5.96 and Hindustan Aeronautics
Ltd. Smt. Radhika on 9.10.96 holding that appointment
on compassionate grounds can be made only if
vacancy is available for the purpose. Your case does
not fulfill the indigency criteria/ is time-barred and
moreover there is no vacancy available in the
Department for appointment on compassionate
grounds. Hence, the department is unable to accept to
your request for appointment on compassionate
grounds."
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.8.2006, the petitioners filed the said
original application No.2775/11 before the Tribunal which was dismissed by virtue of the
impugned order dated 08.08.2011. Although the Tribunal felt that the OA itself was
barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal also examined the merits of the matter and came to the
conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the
respondents.
5. We are also of the view that the High Court's order dated 17.12.2004 specifically
directed that the petitioners' case for compassionate appointment was to be considered in
accordance with law and in terms of the existing policy of the respondents. The financial
condition of the petitioners was also considered by the respondents while passing the
order dated 18.08.2006. The respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioners'
condition was not so penurious as to entitle them to compassionate appointment. In any
event, we also note that there was no compassionate appointment after Om Prakash died
on 12.12.2001 up to 04.07.2008. In other words, nobody had been appointed on
compassionate grounds within the period of three years of the death of late Om Prakash.
Therefore, the petitioners can have no grievance in respect of the compassionate
appointment offered by the respondents to someone else on 04.07.2008, which was
almost seven years after the death of late Om Prakash and almost four years after the
High Court order dated 17.12.2004.
6. Consequently, we find that the petitioners have no case under the existing rules.
The Tribunal's order cannot be faulted.
7. The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K.JAIN, J
APRIL 13, 2012/rb
