Bharatdash S/O Late ... vs The Chief Post Master General
2022 Latest Caselaw 369 Guj

    C/SCA/15010/2019                           JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15010 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA                                 Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE                               Sd/-

================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be                      NO
     allowed to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                       NO

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy             NO
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question             NO
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================
 BHARATDASH S/O LATE MAHENDRAPRASAD NIMAVAT
                           Versus
            THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
================================================
Appearance:
MR MS TRIVEDI(939) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
      and
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE



                               Page 1 of 7

                                                    Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 09:21:04 IST 2022
      C/SCA/15010/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022



                           Date : 12/01/2022

                  ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order/ decision dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No.186 of 2017 in Misc. Application No.180/2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is son of one Mahendraprasad Nimavat, who was serving as Group 'D' employee in the office of the respondents, had expired on 18.01.2010. Immediately on the death of his father, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment through the Post Master General, Rajkot vide his application dated 11.10.2010. The said application dated 11.10.2010 was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee and the same was considered by it in its meeting held on 24.08.2011. Subsequently, on consideration of his application, the applicant was informed that his case was examined by the Circle Relaxation Committee but, was not recommended for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation which was also considered by the respondents and he was informed that his request dated 04.11.2011 for reconsidering his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner presented Original Application seeking direction to the

C/SCA/15010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022

respondent to consider his case for compassionate appointment and to offer him appointment on the basis of his qualification in terms of the policy prevalent at the time of his application. Thereafter, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2017. Hence, the petitioner preferred the present petition.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Vyoma K. Jhaveri for Respondents.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the impugned order is vague and bald. He referred that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and his family is living in destitute condition. He further submitted that after the death of his father, the family was put to miserable condition for want of source of income. He submitted that these facts were not taken into consideration by the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner had secured more than 61 points even though the claim of the petitioner was not recommended by the Respondent No.3 ignoring the fact that father of the petitioner was Group 'D' employee and was the only earning member in the family. He submitted that case of the petitioner has been examined/ reviewed on compassionate ground and the same has not been recommended. He submitted that the

C/SCA/15010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022

case of the petitioner falls under the scheme dated 20.10.2010 of respondents. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not rightly considered the facts as well as the instructions issued in the year 1999 by the Department of Personnel & Training for considering case of the petitioner. He further submitted that though the petitioner had secured 71 points his case was not recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee for want of sufficient vacancies, as per 5% provided for the same. He therefore submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and hence, the same may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the respondents submitted that 5% quota of the compassionate appointments was counted to be only 'four' and as against the four vacancies, the claim of 41 dependents cases were considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee. She submitted that out of total 41 cases, the names of four candidates were recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee, who have earned more number of weightage points than the remaining candidates. She submitted that the Circle Relaxation Committee adopted a balanced and objective assessment of the financial conditions of each of 41 families by taking into account their assets and liabilities. She further submitted that until and unless the petitioner points out any discrepancy in the weightage points gained by him in term of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds dated 20.01.2010, the claim of the petitioner cannot be

C/SCA/15010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022

entertained. She further submitted that the object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds being to tide over the sudden financial crisis of the family, whereas in the present case, as on date, more than a period of 11 years have already expired. She submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in the eyes of law by passing the impugned order and the same is just and proper and as per the evidence on record. She therefore submitted that the present petition may be dismissed.

6. As regards the appointment on compassionate ground, the Court cannot be oblivious to the principles of law governing the appointments of this nature. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appointment on the compassionate ground by its very nature, is an exception to a legal mode for making appoints in the filed of public employment. In case of Umeshkumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) SCC 138, the Supreme Court has held that as a matter of rule the appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation and on merits and no other mode is permissible. In case of State of Jammu Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Saja Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Supreme Court has held that a person seeking compassionate appointment will not be entitled to it after unreasonable passage of time, because the purpose of such appointment is to help him in negotiating crisis after death of a bread earner family member.

C/SCA/15010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022

7. It appears from the record that out of total number of posts, 5% of the posts were earmarked for appointment on compassionate grounds. In respect of the said posts, the respondents had received application from 41 dependents and the said applications were duly considered by the Competent Authority of the Respondent Department, which is Circle Relaxation Committee and thereafter all the four posts were filled in on the basis of merits. It appears that the petitioner was not selected and his name was not found in top 4 selected candidates. It is not in dispute that the method of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by the scheme dated 20.01.2010. At the same time, it is fairly admitted by the petitioner that the four candidates, who have been recommended for appointment by the Circle Relaxation Committee have gained more weightage points than the petitioner.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi is not in a position to show anything from the record so as to take a contrary view in the matter or to opine that the approach of the learned Tribunal is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Tribunal has ignored the material on record.

9. The scheme for providing compassionate appointment was introduced with a view to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent conditions of the family. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the case of petitioner in terms of the policy

C/SCA/15010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022

and therefore, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in dismissing the Original Application No.186/2017 of the petitioner. We are , therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion recorded by the Tribunal and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

Sd/-

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) MEHUL B. TUVAR