Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh Bisht vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr on 26 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on : February 12, 2018
% Judgment Delivered on : February 26, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1263/2018
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rahul Kumar, Advocate
versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sameer Agarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
CM No.5273/2018 (by the petitioner for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM No.5272/2018 (by the petitioner for condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the
petition is condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1263/2018
1. This writ petition is another glaring example of how in the name
of compassion, even after the decades of the death of the bread earner
of the family, the policy of the Government to provide employment to
the dependent of the deceased employee to save the family from
starvation, is being misused. Despite overcoming the crisis, if any, due
to the death of the employee, the dependents continue to litigate to
seek a back door entry in the name of compassion.
2. The facts of the writ petition reveals that late Sh.Pratap Singh
Bisht, father of the petitioner herein, was employed as a Phone
Mechanic in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in Uttranchal
Circle. The father of the petitioner expired on 01.09.2005, while in
service. Late Sh.Pratap Singh Bisht left behind his widow and two
sons i.e. the petitioner and his younger brother.
3. The petitioner was 19 years of age at that time. In December,
2005, the petitioner applied for employment on compassionate
ground. When his application for employment on compassionate
ground was under consideration, on 18.07.2008 his mother
Smt.Pushpa Bisht also staked her claim for appointment on
compassionate ground. Before any decision could be taken by the
BSNL on the issue of providing employment to one of the dependents
of Late Sh.Pratap Singh Bisht, again another application was filed by
Smt.Pushpa Bisht in January, 2009 that instead of her, the petitioner
be given appointment on compassionate ground.
4. On not being able to get a job on compassionate ground, the
petitioner filed O.A.No.1933/2011 for seeking directions to the
respondent/BSNL to consider his case against any Group 'C' post in
BSNL. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2012,
directing the respondent/BSNL to take a final decision on the
petitioner's application seeking appointment on compassionate
ground.
5. The respondent/BSNL, vide circular No.272-18/2005-Pers.IV,
dated 27.06.2007, decided to continue with the policy guidelines on
compassionate ground appointment issued by the DoP&T O.M. dated
09.10.1998, but introduced the weightage point system as per details
given in Annexure-1 appended to the circular. It was also decided by
the respondent/BSNL that the assessment criteria for recommendation
of the indigent condition of the family by the Circle High Power
Committee shall be (a) case with 55 or more net points shall be prima
facie treated as eligible for consideration by the Corporate Office
High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment, and
(b) cases with net points below 55 (i.e. 54 or less) shall be treated as
'non-indigent' and rejected. Against the requirement of 55 points so as
to be declared as 'an indigent', the petitioner had secured only 37
points. Hence his case was rejected.
6. The petitioner again filed O.A.No.2912/2013, questioning the
legality of the Points Weightage System which was introduced in the
year 2007. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal mainly on
the ground that as per circular dated 27.06.2007, ibid, the cases with
55 or more net points shall be treated as eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground and even if 5 negative points awarded to the
petitioner are not taken into account, still he had scored 42 net points.
It was held that his case had rightly been treated as 'non-indigent', and
hence, his request has been rightly rejected.
7. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
order dated 10.02.2016 passed in O.A. No.2912/2013 on the ground
that any change or amendment to any policy or provision of law
cannot be implemented retrospectively. The petitioner had moved the
application in December, 2005 and the inordinate delay in disposing
of the said application by the respondents could not have been to his
disadvantage.
8. During the course of hearing, the petitioner through his counsel
has informed this Court that now he is 31 years old. He is married and
also having a child.
9. The legal position is well settled that appointment on
compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment, but merely an
exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on
open invitation of applications on merits. The underlying intention is
on the death of the employee concerned, his family is not deprived of
the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over
the sudden financial crisis faced by them on the demise of the sole
earning member.
10. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.Shashank Goswami &
Anr. reported as (2012) 11 SCC 307, the Apex Court has observed as
under:-
"The claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is
based on the premise that the applicant was dependant
on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot
be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the
Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered
as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden
crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has
served the State and dies while in service, and, therefore,
appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be
claimed as a matter of right."
11. We have been noticing that the gesture of the employer towards
the dependents in consideration of the services rendered by the
deceased employee, has in fact become akin to a right to inherit. We
cannot lose sight of the fact that there is cut throat competition to seek
public employment, but even after decades of the death of the
employee, backdoor entry is being provided to the dependents of the
deceased employee even when the family has already overcome the
crisis.
12. At the time of his death, late Sh.Pratap Singh Bisht, who was an
employee of BSNL, Uttranchal Circle, had left behind three
dependents. Either of them i.e. the petitioner or his mother were
eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
Both of them were staking a claim which resulted in the delay in
disposal of their applications. By that time, the new CGA Policy
Guidelines were received from the BSNL, Head Quarter, New Delhi
vide letter No.273-18/2005-Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007 wherein a
weightage point system as per the guidelines of the DOP&T, Govt. of
India was introduced for processing the CGA cases. Despite the fact
that subsequently, the petitioner's mother had surrendered in favour of
her son i.e. the petitioner herein in the year 2009, vide her
communication dated 23.01.2009, the petitioner had failed to secure
the required weightage points i.e. 55 points so as to be termed as an
'indigent' and be eligible to get an appointment on compassionate
ground. The learned Tribunal has examined the case of the petitioner
by giving further relaxation to the extent that even the five negative
points were ignored. Despite that, the petitioner could secure only 42
points against the requirement of 55 points for being eligible for
appointment on compassionate ground.
13. After 13 years of the demise of his father, the petitioner, who by
now is a married man having a family, could not have been given
compassionate appointment as it is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time. The purpose behind such an appointment is to
provide immediate succor against destitution to the family of the
deceased employee by giving due consideration to the services
rendered by him till he was alive as well as to address a legitimate
expectancy of the survivors seeking a financial tide over due to the
sudden death of the sole earning member.
14. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the
order of the Tribunal impugned before us.
15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
HIMA KOHLI
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
'st'
