Harish Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another

The Petitioner Harish Kumar''s father Prem Chand was an employee of Delhi Jal Board. He expired on 19th March, 2003, leaving behind three sons including the Petitioner and one daughter and a widow. By letter dated 8th July, 2003, widow of late Prem Chand made an application for compassionate appointment of Petitioner, her youngest son. The Petitioner was asked to appear for interview on 20th February, 2004, but no appointment letter was issued. It is the case of the Respondent that his case for compassionate appointment was rejected vide letter dated 23rd February, 2005. It is the contention of the Petitioner that this letter was never received by him. However, it is admitted that after the call letter and interview held on 20th February, 2004, the Petitioner had not enquired and had made a representation on 18th December, 2007. Thereafter, he wrote two more representations on 18th June, 2008 and 17th November, 2009.

On the basis of information that there were 24 vacant group D posts, the Petitioner made a complaint with the Public Grievance Commission, Department of Administrative Reforms, on 17th January, 2010. Before the Commission, it was stated by the Respondent that it was not possible to offer compassionate appointment to the Petitioner due to the ceiling of 5%. The Commission closed the matter on 24th September, 2010. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed OA No. 3708/2010, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30th November, 2010.

It is difficult to accept and believe that the Petitioner was not aware of the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment, especially when he was earlier called for interview on 20th February, 2004. As per the case of the Petitioner, the next representation was made only in December, 2007. Repeated representations thereafter 2007 onwards, it is well settled, does not confer a fresh cause of action or explains the delay.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon scheme for compassionate appointment, 1998, framed by Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India and it was submitted that even delayed applications upto 5 years or so, can be entertained. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment has been considered by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, ; General Manager, State Bank of India and Others Vs. Anju Jain, ; Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and it has been observed that the compassionate appointment is made to tide over untimely death of a family member which suddenly plunges the grieved family into immediate and unexpected penury and financial despair. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is not a source for recruitment. There is a ceiling of 5%. The most deserving and hard cases have to be given preference over others. As per the application for compassionate appointment, the deceased had three married sons but the younger son i.e. the Petitioner was unemployed. It may be mentioned that the Petitioner has stated that he was 30 years old, in the application filed before the Administrative Tribunal. After the interview by the screening committee on 20th February, 2004, the Petitioner waited and made a fresh representation on 18th December, 2007 after a gap of more than 3 years.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.