Delhi High Court
Sh. Vikas Kumar vs Food Corporation Of India on 27 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3631/2014
% 27th January, 2015
SH. VIKAS KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Ms. Pratibha Gupta,
Advocate
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. 23.1.2015 was declared a holiday, and by notification
no.11/Genl/DHC dated 21.1.2015 cases of 23.1.2015 were to be taken up
today. This case is therefore taken up today.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment with the respondent
inasmuch as the petitioner claims that his father Sh. Surender Pal Singh
while working with the respondent died in harness on 18.11.2001. The
impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment is dated 21/22.5.2013 (Annexure P-10 ) and the same reads as
under :
"No. E.IX.1/(Misc)/2013/NZ Dated 21/22.05.2013
Sh. Vikash Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Surendra Pal,
Gram-Yakubpur, Post-Dhaturi,
Thana-Salempur, Bulandsaher (U.P)
Sub:- Compassionate Ground Appointment in r/o Sh. Vikash
Kumar S/o Late Sh. Surendra Pal-Regarding.
Sir,
Please refer to your letter dated 18.04.2013 referred to
above on the subject cited.
In this connection, it is intimated that your case was rostered
at Sl. No. 867/2003 for cat-IV post. It has been examined on merit
for the year 2003 by the Zonal Empowered Committee and was
rejected with the approval of the Competent Authority since there
was no Vacancy within ceiling limit of 5% of Direct Recruitment
Quota as per Govt. of India instructions in vogue and there is no
provision to reconsider the case after rejection.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Manager (E.IX)
For Asst. General Manager (Pers.)
Copy to :
1. AGM (ZE), FCI, Hqrs. w.r.t letter No.
32(6)/11/NZ/Misc/ZE-II/468 dated 10.05.13 - for information.
For Asst. General Manager (Pers.)"
3. The relevant para of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment
which does not permit carrying forward of vacancy in future years is para
7(e) of the Scheme and which reads as under :
"7(e) The committee constituted for considering a request for
appointment on compassionate grounds should limit its
recommendation to appointment on compassionate grounds only
in a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for
appointment on compassionate grounds will be available within a
year in the concerned administrative Ministry/Department/Office,
that too with the ceiling of 5% of vacancies falling under DR quota
in Group 'C' posts (O.M. NO. 14014/18/2000-EStt. (D) dated
22.06.2001)" (underlining added)
4. It is also relevant to note that in terms of para 5(a) of the Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment, one of the reasons for seeking compassionate
appointment is to get immediate assistance and avoiding financial
destitution.
5. Entitlement to compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of
recruitment and the same is an exception to the regular mode of recruitment.
Compassionate appointment can therefore be granted only in terms of the
Scheme. In terms of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment,
vacancies were limited to 5% per year and in this case were already
exhausted in the relevant year, and therefore, the petitioner cannot get any
appointment in terms of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Also, by
virtue of the said compassionate scheme, the vacancy for the year 2002 or
even 2003 cannot be carried forward till the year 2014 when the writ petition
has been filed inasmuch as para 5(a) states that eligibility for compassionate
appointment is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance
for relief from financial destitution, and which immediate position with
respect to the death of an employee in the year 2001 cannot be seen as of
2014 when the writ petition was filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon an
order of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 24.11.2014 in
W.P.(C) 6988/2014 to argue that respondent must consider the case of the
petitioner, however, the said order will not apply to the facts of the present
case because in the relevant year/concerned year for which the petitioner
was entitled to appointment there was a limit of 5% vacancies reserved for
compassionate appointment and which limit stood exhausted and whereafter
the vacancies cannot be carried forward for the subsequent year.
7. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 27, 2015
godara
