Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thru Chief ... vs Sh.Vikas on 8 July, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 08, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 4168/2012
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THRU CHIEF
SECRETARY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate
with Ms.Megha and Ms.Bandana
Shukla, Advocates
versus
SH.VIKAS ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction issued by the
Tribunal on September 01, 2010 deciding OA No.2067/2010 a speaking
order dated October 18, 2010 has been passed on the subject of
respondent's entitlement to be granted appointment on compassionate
grounds due to his father dying in harness on March 01, 2005.
2. The speaking order takes note of the fact that on the death of
the deceased the family received a sum of `10,37,548/- as death-cum-
terminal benefits and a family pension of `4,200/- + dearness allowance
was sanctioned.
3. We note that the current pension would be nearly double the
amount + dearness allowance because of the fact that in the year 2008
with retrospective effect from January 01, 2006 6 th Central Pay
Commission's recommendations being implemented a quantum jump in
pension and family pension took place.
4. The speaking order also takes note of the fact that as per the
policy pertaining to compassionate appointment only 5% quota of posts
which have to be filled by direct recruitment are to be reserved for
appointment on compassionate grounds and that a claim needs to be
considered maximum up to 3 times. The speaking order records that
there being large number of claimants, each case was considered on its
merits and that the respondent could not be empanelled for appointment.
5. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated November 17,
2011 has not faulted the view taken by the Screening Committee save and
except with respect to limiting respondent's entitlement to be considered
for compassionate appointment only three times.
6. It is trite that compassionate appointment is intended to
provide employment to one dependent of the family of a deceased
employee who dies all of a sudden in harness leaving the family in
penury.
7. Thus, the finances with the family on the death of a
Government servant would be a very relevant factor in determining who
gets appointment on compassionate grounds.
8. A widowed wife having minor children to support with very
meager family pension and meager death-cum-terminal dues paid due to
the reason her husband died rendering few years' service would
obviously be entitled to a preference over a claim made by a major son of
a deceased employee because in the latter case, having rendered large
number of years' service the family pension together with interest income
which may accrue to the family due to death-cum-terminal benefits paid
would be enough for the family to sale through.
9. As regards limiting entitlement for three years for being
appointed on compassionate grounds we see reason in the policy. The
reason being that if the family can sustain itself for three years it is
obvious that the family can manage without additional resources.
10. The order dated October 18, 2010 records that a very large
number of candidates had applied for appointment on compassionate
grounds and that relative comparable hardship was seen in each case to
draw up a panel of those who would be granted compassionate
appointment.
11. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned decision dated
November 17, 2011 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and OA
No.142/2011 is dismissed.
12. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 08, 2013
mamta
