Anubhav Ganguly vs Accountant General (A&E)-I & Anr.

Heard Shri Shubhasis Halder learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ananya Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents .

The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the father of the applicant, Late Shri Gautam Ganguly, was working as Senior Accountant in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E)-I, Allahabad and died in harness on 28.11.2010. According to the applicant, he was the sole bread earner of the family. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant submitted an application dated 07.03.2011 through proper channel seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant. The applicant was called upon to produce his testimonials and to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee. His claim was considered by the Committee but was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2011. The applicant’s mother thereafter submitted a representation for reconsideration, which was rejected vide communication dated 12/13.01.2012 on the ground that there was no provision for reconsideration of cases rejected by the Departmental Selection Committee. The applicant submits that the family had incurred substantial liabilities towards the medical treatment of his deceased father and that the family was also not having its own house. The applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 298 of 2014. An amendment application was also filed in the said proceedings. The said O.A. along with the amendment application was withdrawn on 01.04.2022 with liberty to file a fresh Original Application and with an observation that the issue of limitation would not come in the way of the fresh O.A. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.

Per contra, by way of filing counter affidavit it is submitted that the applicant’s case was duly considered by the Departmental Selection Committee for the panel year 2011 along with 16 other cases, on the basis of the parameters prescribed under the compassionate appointment scheme, including the financial condition of the family, terminal benefits, pension, liabilities, dependants and other relevant circumstances, and was rejected upon overall assessment and availability of vacancies. It is further submitted that the family received substantial terminal benefits, including D.C.R.G. of Rs.10,00,000/-, earned leave encashment of Rs.3,33,713/-, C.G.E.I.S. of Rs.65,212/- and D.L.I.S. of Rs.60,000/-, besides provisional family pension of Rs.11,565/- per month plus dearness relief. Learned counsel submits that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and relies upon Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 and Santhosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 6 SCC 481.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was not considered in its proper perspective. It is submitted that although the respondents have stated that several parameters were considered by the Departmental Selection Committee, there is no proper heading-wise assessment and allocation of points showing as to how the applicant was assessed under each individual criterion. Learned counsel submits that merely mentioning various parameters in a general manner cannot substitute an objective assessment of the individual case. It is further submitted that the terminal benefits received by the family cannot, by themselves, be treated as sufficient proof that the family was financially sound, particularly when substantial amounts were required to meet the liabilities incurred towards the medical treatment of the deceased employee. It is also submitted that the fact that the family did not possess its own residential house was required to be duly considered. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the applicant’s case deserves to be reconsidered by the competent Committee by awarding points under each prescribed heading separately.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the applicant was duly considered by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted for the panel year 2011. It is submitted that the Committee considered 17 cases for Group ‘C’ and MTS posts and assessed the cases on the basis of the relevant parameters prescribed under the scheme. The parameters included length of service of the deceased employee, age at the time of death, size of the dependent family, educational qualifications, total income of the family, terminal and pensionary benefits, immovable property, liabilities, earnings of family members and contemporaneity of the cases. It is submitted that after considering the overall financial condition of the family and availability of vacancies, the applicant’s case was rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the family of the deceased employee received substantial terminal benefits, including D.C.R.G. of Rs.10,00,000/-, earned leave encashment of Rs.3,33,713/-, C.G.E.I.S. of Rs.65,212/- and D.L.I.S. of Rs.60,000/-. It is also submitted that the widow of the deceased employee was granted provisional family pension of Rs.11,565/- per month plus dearness relief. Learned counsel submits that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to a family left in indigent circumstances. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 and Santhosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 6 SCC 481.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire record.

There is no dispute that the father of the applicant died in harness and that the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the Departmental Selection Committee. It is also not disputed that the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have referred to various parameters which were allegedly taken into consideration while assessing the claim of the applicant. The scheme of compassionate appointment is intended to provide relief to the family of a deceased Government servant which is left in financial distress. It is equally well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. However, when the competent authority undertakes consideration of a claim under the scheme, such consideration has to be made objectively, fairly and in accordance with the parameters prescribed under the applicable instructions.

In the present case, the respondents have stated that the Departmental Selection Committee considered various parameters, such as the length of service of the deceased employee, age, size of the family, educational qualifications, income, terminal benefits, immovable property, liabilities and earnings of family members. However, what is conspicuously absent from the material placed before the Tribunal is the heading-wise assessment of the applicant’s case and the points awarded under each of the prescribed heads. The mere fact that certain terminal benefits were received by the family cannot, by itself, conclude the question of financial distress. The nature and extent of liabilities, family pension, number of dependants, considered in accordance with the applicable scheme. Similarly, the Tribunal is not expressing any opinion that the applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment merely because his father died in harness. The limited issue is whether his claim was assessed in a transparent and objective manner on the prescribed criteria.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of. The decision dated 09.08.2011, insofar as it concerns the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, is set aside and the respondents are directed to place the applicant’s case before the next meeting of the competent Compassionate Appointment Committee (CRC) for fresh consideration. While considering the case, the CRC shall assess the applicant’s claim under each prescribed head separately and shall record/award the points under each relevant heading, including the relevant financial and family circumstances, liabilities, terminal benefits, family pension, immovable property and other parameters prescribed under the applicable scheme. The Committee shall thereafter arrive at the total points and consider the applicant’s case in accordance with the governing rules/instructions and the comparative position of other eligible candidates. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision taken by the competent Committee shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.