Delhi High Court
Vimnesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 13 July, 2017
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1491 OF 2016
Date of decision: 13th July, 2017
VIMNESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Mr.Pradeep
Jha, Mr.Atul Krishna, Advs. with Mr.Vivek
Kumar Singh, Law Officer CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner aged 22 years is the son of Late Head
Constable Om Prakash. He seeks compassionate appointment
which has been denied because of his marital status under the
scheme of compassionate appointment.
2. Father of the petitioner had expired on 12th December,
2011. He was the only earning family member.
3. The petitioner and his mother moved
applications/representations seeking compassionate
appointment for the petitioner in January and March, 2012. The
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 1
petitioner was asked to submit documents including those
relating to his educational qualification, residential certificate,
details of movable and immovable properties etc. The petitioner
was thereupon asked to appear for Physical and Endurance Test
and Medical Examination in August, 2012. The petitioner had
also qualified the typing test on 18th March, 2013 and was held
eligible for appointment to the post of Constable. His case was
recommended for appointment to the post of Constable
(Mali/Fitter/Driver/Cook etc.). However, the petitioner's
mother had submitted a representation seeking appointment as a
Head Constable (Ministerial). The appointment process for
various reasons took time.
4. By communication dated 1st November, 2014, the
respondents rejected the request of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment on the ground he had got married
and therefore, was not eligible.
5. The respondents had rejected the claim of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment on the basis of clarification
issued by the Dept. of Personal Training on 30th May, 2013,
which is to the following effect:-
"Whether 'married son' can be considered for
compassionate appointment?
No. A married son is not considered dependent on
a government servant."
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 2
6. The aforesaid clarification was examined by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in WP(C) 16510/2014 titled Union of
India vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. decided on
12th August, 2014 wherein reference was made to the scheme of
compassionate appointment issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
(Department of Personnel and Training) vide memo dated 9th
October, 1998. Note-1 of the scheme defines the expression
"Dependent Family Members" which reads as under:
"Note 1 'Dependent Family Member' means
(a) spouse; or
(b) son(including adopted son); or
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or
(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried
Government servant or member of the Armed
Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para,
Who was wholly dependent on the Government
servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of
his death in harness or retirement on medical
grounds, as the case may be."
Reference was also made to the clarification issued by
DOPT No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D) dated 25th February, 2015
which is to the following effect:-
S.No. Question Answer
Whether "married Yes, if he otherwise
son" can be fulfils all the other
considered for requirements of the
compassionate Scheme i.e. He is
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 3
appointment? otherwise eligible
and fulfils the
criteria laid down in
this Department's
O.M. dated 16h
January, 2013. This
would be effective
from the date of
issue of this FAQ
viz. 25th February,
2015 and the cases
of compassionate
appointment already
settled w.r.t. The
FAQs dated 30th
May, 2013, may not
be reopened.
Sr.No.13 of the
FAQs dated 30th
May, 2013 may be
deemed to have
been modified to
this extent.
7. It is clear from the clarification issued on 25 th February,
2015 that earlier clarification dated 30th May, 2013 has been
withdrawn. Punjab and Haryana High Court elucidating on the
expression 'Dependent Family Member' as defined in Note-1
quoted above held that the said definition would have
precedence and should be applied to determine and decide
whether the candidate seeking compassionate appointment is a
dependent family member or not. Marriage by itself could not
be the determining criteria. The said decision is in consonance
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 4
with the clarification which has been issued by DOPT dated
25th February, 2015 withdrawing the earlier clarification dated
30th May, 2013.
8. We also notice in the facts narrated that some time was
taken for consideration of the application for compassionate
appointment and formalities etc. The petitioner was admittedly
unmarried on the date when his father had died and when he
had submitted his application for consideration. He had got
married in March, 2013. The petitioner claims that the reason
why he got married was because his mother was not keeping
well and he was the only son. The respondents have not
rejected the petitioner application for any other reason except
marriage.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the
impugned order dated 1st November, 2014 by which the
petitioner's candidature seeking compassionate appointment
was rejected on the ground of his marital status. The
respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment in accordance with law and the scheme without
being influenced by his married status.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that
this Court should not entertain the present writ petition on the
ground of forum convenience. We do not think it will be
appropriate to dismiss the present petition on this ground as the
present writ petition has been pending since February, 2016
when notice was issued. The issue and question involved is
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 5
limited. It may not be appropriate in the facts of the present
case to relegate the petitioner to another Court on the aforesaid
principle. The petitioner as noted above is seeking
compassionate appointment and it is obvious that he does not
have financial resources.
11. The case of the petitioner would be examined within six
weeks from the date the copy of this order is received.
12. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case as to whether the petitioner is otherwise
eligible for compassionate appointment.
The writ petition is disposed of, without any order as to
costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 13, 2017
RN
WP (C) 1491/2016 Page 6
