Harcharan Singh vs Union of India

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner''s brother, Gurcharan Singh was working with the Food Corporation of India. He unfortunately passed away on December 29, 1994. The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. His application was rejected vide letter dated June 2, 1997. It was observed that he was not eligible. The petitioner did not give up. He applied again. Vide communication dated July 21, 1998 the petitioner was informed that his case had been "re- examined/considered as per circular No. 38/97 and again rejected by the competent authority". Aggrieved by the action the petitioner has approached this Court. He prays that a direction be issued to Food Corporation of India to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents it has been pointed out that the petitioner was not dependent upon Gurcharan Singh. Besides that it has also been averred that the employee Gurcharan Singh was not even married. The petitioner had "failed to apply within 1 year after the death of his brother as required in the instructions....."

The factual position has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Every post under the State has to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Every eligible candidate has to be given an opportunity to compete. However, an exception is made in cases where the bread winner dies leaving behind the family in a state of absolute penury. To help sustain the members of family, the Government and various Corporations have issued instructions for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. The sine quanon, however, is that the family should be facing an acute economic crisis. What is the position in the present case ?

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that the petitioner is working as a labourer on daily wage basis. The petitioner is about 35 years of age. This clearly shows that he has been earning his livelihood for sometime. Resultantly, the family is not facing such an acute crisis that the petitioner may be entitled to the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma has also pointed out that the terminal benefits have already been released and the family has the ability to sustain itself. In this situation, we are unable to hold that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. Resultantly, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.