Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Punita Devi And Anr on 18 January, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18-01-2019
+ W.P.(C) 6523/2018, CM Nos.24939 & 24941/2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with
Mr Siddharth Singh, Advs.
versus
PUNITA DEVI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Yadav with
Mr. D.K.Yadav, Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the
order dated 24th August, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench in OA No.843/2015. The said original application had been
preferred by the respondents to seek compassionate appointment on account
of the demise of the husband of Smt. Punita Devi/respondent no.1 on
12.09.2008. Respondent no.2 is the son of the deceased government servant.
2. The application of the respondents to seek compassionate appointment
was considered in respect of six vacancies in the year 2009. The respondents
were informed that the applicant had secured 55 points based on the criteria
fixed for the said purpose and six candidates selected for compassionate
appointment against the earmarked vacancies had secured points ranging
from 71 to 84 points. Consequently, the application of the respondents to
seek compassionate appointment was rejected. Before the Tribunal, the
respondents had placed reliance on the scheme for compassionate
appointment and in particular on paragraph 7 (e) and (f) which read as
follows:
"(e) Employment under the scheme is not confined to the
Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired
Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be
given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon
availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of
compassionate appointment.
(f)If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to
accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate
appointment, it is open to the administrative
Ministry/Department/office to take up the matter with other
Ministries/Departments/offices of the government of India to provide
at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in
the waiting list."
3. In the light of the aforesaid, the Tribunal directed that the case of the
applicant should be considered in respect of the vacancies for compassionate
appointment, which may have existed in other Ministries.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while
passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not taken into account the
Office Memorandum dated 22nd June, 2001 issued by the DOP&T, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which reads as follows:-
"New Delhi 110001
June 22, 2001
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Compassionate Appointment - Recommendation by the
Committee limited to availability of vacancy.
The undersigned is directed to refer to paragraph 7(f) of the
Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office
Memorandum (O.M.) No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated October 9, 1998
read with O.M. N o.14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999
on the above subject and to say that the matter has been further
examined. Generally it is seen that in view of the 5% ceiling
prescribed for compassionate appointment under the extant
instruction, there are not enough vacancies to accommodate even
requests for compassionate appointment from family members of
Government Servants belonging to the same
Ministry/Department/Office. Consequently, there are no spare
vacancies left to accommodate requests from other
Ministries/Departments/Offices for such appointment. Therefore,
while no useful purpose is being served by taking up the matter with
other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to
consider such other cases received by them from other
Ministries/Departments/Offices for compassionate appointment, it
on the other hand only gives false hope to the applicants as grant of
such appointment by other Ministries, etc. cannot be guaranteed. It
has, therefore, been decided that in future the Committee
prescribed in paragraph 12 of Office Memorandum dated October
9, 1998 for considering a request for 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 within the ceiling of 5% of
vacancies falling under DR quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post
prescribed in this regard in para 7(b) of Office Memorandum
dated October 9, 1998 referred to above.
The instructions contained in the Office Memoranda referred
to above stand modified to the extent mentioned above.
The above decision may be brought to the notice of all
concerned for information, guidance and necessary action.
Hindi version will follow." (emphasis supplied)
5. The submission of the petitioners is that in the light of the aforesaid
Office Memorandum, it was not obligatory for the petitioners to consider the
application for compassionate appointment made by the respondents, by
circulating the same to all other Ministries. Reference is made to the counter
affidavit filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal wherein it had been inter
alia stated:
"The application after necessary verification was forwarded to
the Asstt. Director (Recruitment & Establishment), Office of the
Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle by SSRM, Airmail Stg. Dn.,
New Delhi - 110021 vide letter dated 23.06.2009. A Circle
Relaxation Committee (CRC) was constituted for the purpose.
It is submitted that in all there were 27 applicants/cases
including of the applicant for consideration. It is to be submitted that
under the existing rules circulated by the Ministry of Communication
and IT Department of Posts vide letter No.37-36/2004-SPBI/C dated
20.01.2010 (copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-R1), the criteria
was fixed considering the overall indigent circumstances like number
of dependents particularly minors, amount of pension and terminal
benefits received, size of the family, marriageable daughters,
education of Children, earning members of the family, liabilities and
assets including nature of accommodation whether rented or owned
by the family etc.
There were 6 approved vacancies in the year 2009 with
limitation upto 5% direct recruitment quota vacancies. As submitted
above, there were 27 applicants/cases for consideration.
To ensure complete transparency, the department has worked
out a system of allocation of points to various attributes based on a
hundred points scale. The bifurcation of the same is as follows:-
i) 18 points for family pension
ii) 1 point for amount of terminal benefits received
iii) 5 points for monthly income of earning member &
income from property
iv) 10 points for moveable/immoveable property
v) 15 points for number of dependents, and
vi) 6 points for left over service.
In addition in the cases of widow of deceased employees for
appointment on compassionate ground, for herself she will get 15%
additional grace point. The Committee also considered in each case
the circumstance of the death and also the age of the employee at the
time of death.
The CRC so constituted held its meeting on 18/3/2010 to
consider the 27 applicants against the 6 approved vacancies for the
year 2009. The applicant could score 55 points only AND so fully
based on the above criteria. The Committee had not recommended
applicant's case for compassionate appointment."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if the Office
Memorandum dated 22nd June, 2001 were to be made applicable, it was
essential for the petitioners to consider the respondents' application in the
light of the vacancies which arose in the Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology. According to the respondents, the application of
the respondents should have been considered at All India Level, since the
said Ministry is a Central Ministry.
7. We do not find any merit in the submission of the respondents. The
purport of the said Office Memorandum dated 22nd June, 2001, clearly, was
to limit the consideration of applications for compassionate appointment in
respect of the 5% DR vacancies within the concerned Administrative
Ministry/Department/Office. The said office memorandum itself notes that
such like applications are received in large numbers, and it is not possible to
service all such applications even within the concerned office or department.
Therefore, it serves no purpose to circulate the applications in other
Ministries/Departments/Offices. Thus, the respondents have no basis to
claim that their application should be considered on All India Basis. The
aforesaid extract from the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before the
Tribunal shows that the respondents' application was considered in Delhi
Circle. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained
and the same is set aside.
8. The petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 18, 2019
ak
