AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“(a)A Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Memo no. 5 dated 16th April 2024 issued under the signature of D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Greater Nodia U.P. by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment on the Ground of Compassionate for the post of constable/WC (Male).
(b)That any other appropriate writ, order or direction for which petitioner is deemed to be entitled.”
The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father who was working on the post of constable in the CRPF and was posted in Group Centre, New Delhi having died in harness on 3.3.2012, the mother of the petitioner filed a representation on 23.8.2012 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s mother received a reply on 4.9.2012 stating that as the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years, she may represent only after the petitioner attains the age of 18 years.
It is further case of the petitioner that on attaining the age of 18 years, he filed his application and participated in the physical test but could not succeed. As advised by the respondents, he again applied for the post of CT/WC (Male). The petitioner was sent for medical test wherein he was not found fit on the ground of being overweight by 13 kgs. Not having been appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner has filed the instant application for the reliefs as stated herein above.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents failed to take into consideration that it was the respondents themselves by letter dated 4.9.2012 had communicated to the petitioner’s mother that an application be made after the petitioner attains the age of 18 year. It was further submitted in reference to the judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Rai vs. The Union of India and Ors.; 2024 (3) PLJR 492 that so far as the prescription of physical standards are concerned, the same were not applicable in case of compassionate appointment. As such, it was submitted that the impugned order dated 16.4.2024 (Annexure-P/1) rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of the petitioner being overweight by 13 kgs be set aside and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It was submitted that the father of the petitioner having died on 3.3.2012, the petitioner filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground on 24.4.2023. In the detailed medical examination conducted on the petitioner on 12.1.2024, he was declared unfit on account of being overweight by 13 kgs. Learned counsel further submitted that a proposal for relaxing the case of the petitioner being overweight by 13 kgs was sent to the competent authority at the Directorate General, CRPF, however the relaxation was not granted. The department has given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh upon fulfilling the requisite medical and eligibility standards.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the facts not in dispute are that the father of the petitioner who was working in the capacity of a constable in the CRPF having died in harness on 3.3.2012, an application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed by the petitioner after attaining majority, on 24.4.2023. The same was turned down on account of the petitioner being medically unfit being overweight by 13 kgs as communicated by letter dated 16.4.2024 (Annexure-P/1).
It may be observed here that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which has befallen the family as a result of the employee dying in harness leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It is not an alternate mode of giving employment and as such in view of the object, the time within which the application for compassionate appointment is made and the appointment given becomes very relevant.
In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“2.…..One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. ………………………………
6.For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; (2000) 7 SCC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“3.……. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 192 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1302 : (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181] . It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.”
In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. vs. Promila and Anr.; (2020) 2 SCC 729, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“4.……. Compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.”
Coming to the facts of the instant case, the father of the petitioner having died in harness on 3.3.2012, the respondents even permitting the petitioner to file his application on 24.4.2023, in the opinion of the Court and specially in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced herein above, the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis, fails. The petitioner having been able to sustain after the death of his father for 11 years when he filed his application for compassionate appointment for the first time, no case for compassionate appointment is made out by the petitioner. In addition, the application of the petitioner was still considered and the petitioner was not appointed having been found medically unfit on the ground of being 13 kgs overweight.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above and specially even in absence of any provisions in the rules to the contrary, the very fact that the petitioner was able to sustain himself and filed an application for compassionate appointment for the first time only after 11 years of his father’s death, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of any relief in the instant application.
The application is dismissed.