Delhi High Court
Parveen vs Director & Anr. on 4 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 744/2013
% 4th October, 2013
PARVEEN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. H. Arjun, Adv.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sweety Manchanda, CGSC for
R-1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Parveen, son of late Sh. Bishan
Saroop who was an employee of the respondent no. 1. Petitioner claims
compassionate appointment as his father late Sh. Bishan Saroop died in
harness on 30.1.2008 at the age of 54 years.
2. A reference to the petition shows that the mother of the
petitioner had earlier applied for compassionate appointment, her case was
considered on merits, and the case was rejected in the years 2008 and 2010.
Petitioner-son now claims compassionate appointment and challenges the
rejection order dated 22.11.2012.
WPC 744/2013 Page 1 of 4
3. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 shows that
various points are allocated under different heads for entitlement to
compassionate appointment, and as per the point system which has been
applied, petitioner does not meet the criteria. The allocation of points is as
per the Memorandums dated 22.1.2010 and 14.5.2010 which have been filed
at pages 46 to 48 of the counter-affidavit.
4. In view of the above, the following order was passed with respect to
the petitioner on 3.6.2009:-
"DOP/09/95042/P/02 03 Jun 2009
The Director
ISSA
Delhi
REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT: SH.
PARVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE SH BISHAN SAROOP, ALS 'B'
Reference your letter number ISSA/400/49/Admin dated 20 May
2009.
2. As already clarified the case for appointment of Sh. Parveen
Kumar s/o Late sh. Bishan Saroop on compassionate grounds has
been considered and decided by the Compassionate Appointment
Committee chaired by CC R&D (LS & HR) & DS on the basis of
information provided by the lab. Also, the lab would be aware, the
merit of the case for appointment on compassionate grounds is
ascertained on the basis of the points scored by the case in the 100
points scale. Maximum the number of points the higher the chances.
Needless to say, a case where the assets are less and the liabilities are
more as per the factors given in the 100 points scheme will get more
benefic points. In the case of Sh. Parveen Kumar if the additional GPf
WPC 744/2013 Page 2 of 4
disbursal is factored the number of points scored by the case would
further come down.
3. Even on the basis of taking Rs.82,408/- as GPF disbursal
(instead of the actual Rs. 1,48,469/-) the case has not been able to
come up on merit.
4. It is seen that Late Sh. Bishan Saroop died in harness on
30.1.2008 and the case was processed to HQs in the month of June
2008. During the intervening period the lab had adequate time to get
all the facts that have a bearing in the matter checked, before
submission to HQs.
5. Notwithstanding, the above there appears no scope for
reconsideration of the case based on the points obtained by it, on
inter-se-merit.
(Shyamala Parsheera)
Assistant Director (Pers)
for Director General Research & Development"
5. A compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but the
same can only be in accordance with the applicable scheme/policy. A
person who seeks compassionate appointment must satisfy the requirements
of the scheme. Petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the scheme as
he does not reach the cut-off point for getting compassionate appointment.
One of the objects of compassionate appointment is to ensure that persons
who are most deserving and who otherwise not have financial means should
get compassionate appointment. As stated in the counter-affidavit on
WPC 744/2013 Page 3 of 4
account of the death of the father of the petitioner Sh. Bishan Saroop, the
following terminal benefits were paid to the family :
"The father of the Petitioner, Sh. Bishan Saroop, Ex-ALS „B‟ died on
30-01-2008 at the age of 54 during service. After his death the
following terminal benefits/emoluments have been paid to his family.
(i) Family Pension -Rs.2,527/- p.m + Dearness Relief @ 47%
i.e. Rs.1,187/- w.e.f. 31-01-08 (which has been increased to Rs.
4,090/- (after implementation of sixth pay commission)+Dearness
relief thereon as per the appendix „A‟). The family pension is
Rs.4090 + DR Rs. 3272 @ 80% of family pension w.e.f 01-01-2013.
(ii) Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG)- Rs. 1,09,944/-.
(iii) Central Govt Employees Group Insurance Scheme
(CGEGIS) -Rs. 19,927/-.
(iv) General Provident Fund (GPF)- Rs.1,48,469/-
(v) Leave encashment- Rs.15,270/-
6. In view of the above, it is clear that petitioner is not entitled to
compassionate appointment as the petitioner does not meet the eligibility
criteria as per the scheme. Also, the family received such monetary amounts
that it cannot be said to be living in penury for being entitled to
compassionate appointment.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 04, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
