AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts of the case are that after the death of father of the petitioner, being his son, he applied for the post of Assistant on compassionate ground under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in General Insurance Corporation of India. His claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that according to Clause 10.1 of the Scheme, his case was not fit for compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the petitioner falling/eligible under the Scheme for compassionate appointment, which shows that even if there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment, still the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. She further contends that though the mother of the petitioner is earning but the petitioner is living separately and till date, he is not having any permanent job. She further contends that respondents are relying upon the proposed modification in the compassionate appointment scheme, as per which, the petitioner would not be entitled and that is proposed only and not the final. She, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the ‘earnings out of income’ as well as ‘assets’ column in the application form of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.
It would be apposite here to reproduce the relevant Clause 10.1 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in General Insurance Corporation of India, which reads as under:-
“10. WHERE THERE IS AN EARNING MEMBER
10.1In deserving cases, even when there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the competent authority of the Corporation who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the employee, income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the employee and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family.”
A perusal of the above shows that in deserving cases, even when there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the competent authority of the Corporation who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified after having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the employee, income of the earning member as also his liabilities etc. The petitioner has placed on record his application form as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same shows that mother of the petitioner was working in Punjab Gramin Bank as an officer and drawing a salary of Rs.78,919/- in the year 2018 when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Further as per the application form i.e. details of assets and liabilities further shows that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected, since as per Clause 10.1 of the Scheme, the competent authority may consider the family member for compassionate appointment, if he is satisfied having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the employee, income of the earning member as also his liabilities etc.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda & Others Vs. Baljit Singh, 2023 INSC 584 held that appointment of candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and only candidate covered under the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time can be considered for compassionate appointment.
Furthermore, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Tinku Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 INSC 867 held that right to compassionate appointment is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this particular case and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as referred to above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.