Delhi High Court
Lokesh Rani vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 July, 2024
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:-19.07.2024.
+ W.P.(C) 5542/2019
LOKESH RANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Praveen Agrawal with Mr.Atul
Kumar, Mr.Chandan Kumar, Mr.Rohit Dhamija,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Sushil Kr. Pandey with Ms.Neha
Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)
REVIEW PET. 80/2021 & CM APPL. 14913/2021 -Delay 441 days.
1. The present review petition filed by the petitioner seeks review of
order dated 21.05.2019 vide which this Court had dismissed the writ petition
preferred by her, wherein she had assailed the orders dated 22.08.2016 and
07.12.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting
her Original Application being O.A.1657/2014 and Review Application
being R.A.43/2018. In her OA, the petitioner had sought directions to the
respondents to grant her compassionate appointment following the death of
her husband, who was a Packer in the Department of Posts.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by
this Court on 21.05.2019 is liable to be reviewed as there are patent errors
on the face of record. Though the petitioner had assailed this order by way
of a Special Leave Petition being SLP no. 40199/2019, the same was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a review
petition before this Court. He submits that while dismissing the petition,
this Court has erroneously recorded that the last candidate who was granted
compassionate appointment had been awarded 100 points by the Circle
Relaxation Committee and, therefore, the petitioner, who has obtained 88
points was rightly not appointed. This assertion of the respondents that the
last person selected for compassionate appointment had obtained 100 marks
he contends is contrary to record. By drawing our attention to para 6 of the
minutes of the meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee held on
09.06.2011, he submits that persons who had obtained points as low as 67
points were granted compassionate appointment and, therefore, there was no
reason as to why the petitioner should not have been granted compassionate
appointment.
3. Furthermore, he submits that this Court also failed to appreciate that
the mandatory condition to consider cases for compassionate appointment to
family members within three years of the date of death of employee also
stood waived by the DoP&T's OM dated 26.07.2012. He, therefore,
contends that this Court also erred in holding that since the petitioner had
approached the Tribunal in 2014, i.e., after five years of her husband's death
in 2009, her claim could not be considered. He, therefore, prays that the
impugned order be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the
review petition and submits that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court
by urging that candidates with 67 points were granted compassionate
appointment. By referring to the very same minutes of the meeting of the
Circle Relaxation Committee held on 09.06.2011, he submits that the last
selected candidate in the MTS cadre, i.e., the cadre to which the petitioner's
husband belonged and under which category the petitioner was considered,
had obtained 100 points, which aspect was correctly noted by this Court in
its order dated 21.05.2019. Since the petitioner was considered under the
MTS cadre, she cannot seek parity with those who were considered under
the cadre of PA/SA/LDC. Further, the petitioner is also incorrect in urging
this Court had held that a claim for compassionate appointment could not be
considered after three years and contends that this was not even the stand
taken by the respondents before this Court. He, therefore, prays that the
review petition be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, even though we find that the petitioner has merely
attempted to re-argue the matter, on the insistence of learned counsel for the
petitioner and taking into account that the Hon'ble Apex Court granted
liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition, we have re-examined the
matter on merits. Regrettably, we do find any merit in any of the two
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In order to appreciate the first contention of the petitioner that
candidates with lesser points than her were granted compassionate
appointment and therefore, she was discriminated against, it may be apposite
to note the relevant extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the Circle
Relaxation Committee held on 09.06.2011, relied upon by both sides:-
6. As per points, the following candidates are recommended for
compassionate appointment and allotted to different Units as
follows:-
Sl Name of the Name of Recommend
No. applicant with deceased, ations of the
points and designation CRC
relationship with and name
the deceased of the
(Shri/Smt.) Unit(Late
Shri)
A PA/SA/LDC
Cadre
1. |Poonam Dahiya Rohtas Recommended for
Dahiya, the post of PA in
(88 Points) Wife Ex.PA. on Delhi North Dn.
deputation
to APS as
Warrant
Officer,
North Dn.
2. Sangeela Surender Recommended for
Kumar, the post of PA in
(84 points) wife Ex.Postman Central Dn.
, N.Delhi
West Dn.
3. Baby Kumar Chandan Recommended for
Kumar the post of PA in
(72 points) wife Chanchal, NDHO
Ex-PA,
Central Dn.
4. Ashok Kumar Madan Pal Recommended for
Singh, Ex- the post of SA in
(79 points) son LSG New Delhi
Supervisor, Sorting Dn.
Delhi
Sorting Dn.
5. Manjeet Singh Pratap Recommended for
Singh, Ex- the post of SA in
(67 points) Son Postman, Air Mail Stg. Dn.
Delhi GPO
6. Raj Bala Rajinder Recommended for
Kumar, ex- the Post of LDC
(67 points) Wife PA, North in the O/o
Dn XEN(E).
Meghdoot
Bhawan, New
Delhi 110001
B. * * *
C. MTS cadre
8. Anju Krishan Recommended for
Swaroop the post of MTS in
(115 points) Ex-M/M, Delhi Stg. Dn.
Delhi Stg.
Dn.
9. Gomti Devi Manoj Recommended the
Kumar, post of MTS in
(108 points) wife LDC, New Delhi, GPO
DA(P)
10. Usha Rani Ram Recommended for
Kanwar, the post of MTS in
(102 points) wife Packer, Delhi GPO
Delhi GPO
11. Mamta Suresh Recommended for
Chand, the Post of MTS
(102 points) wife Postman, in Delhi East Dn.
Delhi East
Dn.
12. Sudershna Devi Naresh Recommended for
Kumar-II the post of MTS in
(100 points) wife Ex-M/M, Delhi Stg. Dn.
Delhi Stg.
Dn.
Emphasis Supplied
7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that the last
candidate selected for compassionate appointment from the MTS cadre had
obtained 100 points. The petitioner's husband belonged to the MTS cadre
and, therefore, she was rightly considered under the same category where
she obtained 88 points. Merely because candidates under a different cadre
i.e., PA/SA/LDC were granted compassionate appointment even with lesser
points than those obtained by the petitioner, cannot be a ground to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner who was admittedly considered
under a different cadre, i.e., MTS. In our considered view, the petitioner
cannot seek parity with candidates who were considered under other
different cadres. We, therefore, find absolutely no merit in this plea of the
petitioner that she has been discriminated against.
8. Now coming to the petitioner's second contention that this Court had
wrongly observed that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation.
In order to appreciate this plea, it would be necessary to note the relevant
extract of our order dated 21.05.2019, which reads as under:-
"The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there was no time limit for consideration of an application for
compassionate appointment since the earlier limitation for three
years was done away with. We do not find any merit in the
petitioner's submission. The compassionate appointment is not a
regular source of recruitment and there is no vested right for the
petitioner to secure such appointment. It is granted to the
bereved family to tide over the financial distress that it is thrown
into on account of the demise of the bread winner of the family
who was in government service. The case of the petitioner was
considered by the respondents and she could not be appointed
since she secured lesser points than the last selected candidate/
applicant. There was no surviving urgency to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner when she
approached the Tribunal in the year 2014 considering the fact
that the demise of her husband had taken place on 29.09.2009."
9. What emerges from the aforesaid observations of this Court is that
this Court while dismissing a similar petition seeking compassionate
appointment has not referred to any specific period of limitation, much less
of three years, but has observed that since the petitioner's husband had
expired in 2009, there could be no such surviving urgency for grant of
compassionate appointment in 2014, when the petitioner approached the
Tribunal for the first time. We, therefore, find no force in the petitioner's
plea that this Court had erroneously dismissed the writ petition on the
presumption that no claim for compassionate appointment could be
considered after three years.
10. Even otherwise, the observations made by this Court to the effect that
there was no surviving urgency to grant compassionate appointment with the
petitioner, are in consonance with the consistent view taken by the Apex
Court. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment to a family
member of a deceased employee is to enable the family to tide over the
sudden financial crisis and cannot be treated a source of employment. In this
regard, reference may be made to the following observations of the Apex
Court in para 8 of its decision in Central Coal Fields Ltd vs. Parden Oraol
(2021)16 SCC 384:-
"8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to
the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee
in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.
The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of
the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but
for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the
family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC
138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . It was further asseverated in the
said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted
after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such
employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any
time in the future. It was further held that the object of
compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the
financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole
breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or
offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is
over."
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the review petition,
which is, along with the pending application, dismissed, making it clear that
since we have considered the Review Petition on merits, we have not delved
into the reasons furnished for condonation of delay.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
(SHALINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2024/sr
