Harman Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order issued vide Memo no.116-117 dated 17.04.2017 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Sh.Satnam Singh, Beldar has been rejected on the ground that family is not in dire financial straits as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional.

Brief facts of the case succinctly stated are that the father of the petitioner Sh. Satnam Singh was appointed on the post of Beldar in the Government Brajindra College, Faridkot and unfortunately died in harness on 19.09.2015. The petitioner after sad demise of his father submitted an application in the prescribed performa for compassionate appointment on 01.02.2016. (Annexure P-3) which was returned vide letter dated 17.02.2016 by respondent no.3. The petitioner again re-submitted the application on 21.04.2016 which was again rejected owing to some objections which were complied with and thereafter the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was duly recommended by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 vide letter dated 28.05.2016. However, the petitioner did not receive any information which compelled him to submit an application through his counsel in RTI seeking information wherein it came out that claim of the petitioner is pending because there is a case pending in the District Court, Faridkot.

The pensionary benefits and the family pension have also not been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased employee and therefore a legal notice dated 24.02.2016 was served upon the respondent and respondent no.3 vide order dated 17.04.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the family of the petitioner is not suffering from any financial dire straits. Hence the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father died in harness in 2015, leaving the family in acute financial hardship, with no earning member. The petitioner, being a dependent son, became entitled to be considered under the compassionate appointment as envisaged under the rules but after consecutively submitting the representation/application to respondent no.3, no heed was paid and rather the application was rejected for having no existing financial crunch in the family.

It is contended that the respondent acted arbitrarily in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by a bald assertion that there were no mitigating factors and that the family was not indigent, without conducting any objective assessment of the financial position as mandated under the scheme.

It is further submitted that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the scheme as no personal hearing was granted, no effort was made by the respondent to visit the family, and no proper inquiry into the indigent condition was conducted on the contrary, the family was repeatedly given assurances and made to run from pillar to post creating legitimate expectation, only to be denied relief after prolonged delay. Thus, the impugned communication/denial dated 17.04.2017 is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Per contra learned State counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. At the outset, it is argued that the petitioner submitted an application(Annexure P-3) which was found to be incomplete and the same was got completed after a prolonged correspondence with the petitioner. Further, case of the petitioner was considered keeping in view the policy for compassionate appointments circulated vide letter no. 11/105/98 dated 21/11/2002 by the Govt of Punjab , Department of Personnel and the case of the petitioner was not found to be covered.

It is asserted that the instant petition is premature as the petitioner has not availed the available opportunity to make appeal/representation against the order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) to the competent appellate authority i.e Director, Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab, Chandigarh therefore in such circumstances, the claim did not satisfy the parameters of the scheme and was rightly rejected by the competent authority.

It is contended that the respondents followed due process, and considered their applications objectively and since compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession subject to policy and followed by a due procedure as per the concerned rules, the rejection is valid and therefore, this petition deserves dismissal.

Having heard counsel for both parties at length and after perusal of the material placed on record this court is of the considered opinion that the facts are largely undisputed. The father of the petitioner, Late Sh. Satnam Singh, who was serving as a Beldar with the respondent no.3-Government Brajindra College, Faridkot, died in harness on 19.09.2015. It is borne out of the record that the application for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority but was declined on 17.04.2017, inter alia, on the ground that the family was not found to be indigent and thus the claim did not satisfy the parameters for the grant of Compassionate Appointment.

This court is sanguine of the fact that the law in regard of compassionate appointment is well settled. The Supreme Court in “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138” has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right of the dependent, but only a concession to alleviate immediate financial crisis caused by the death of an employee in harness. Similarly, the Supreme Court in “Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr.(1994) 2 SCC 718”, has reiterated that compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the policy and that belated claims defeat the very purpose of such scheme. Relevant extract of the same is as follows:

Coming to the case at hand, the claim of the petitioner stands rejected on the basis of the fact that as per the concerned authority, no financial hardship is being faced by the family of the petitioner added to the fact that the petitioner did not follow due procedure in approaching the right forum wherein he should have gone against in appeal to the Director, Department of Education(colleges), Vidya Bhawan Punjab School Education Board Complex, S.A.S. Nagar.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment. It is provided to the dependent family member of a deceased employee primarily to relieve the family from immediate financial distress caused by the employee’s death, and not as a matter of inheritance or entitlement to the deceased employee’s post. Therefore, a dependent does not acquire a vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely because the employee died while in service.

The claim must be considered in accordance with the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme, including factors such as the family’s financial condition, availability of a suitable post, eligibility of the applicant, and the purpose and limitations of the scheme. The expression “not a vested right” means that the death of the employee does not, by itself, create an accrued legal entitlement in favour of the dependent. What arises is only a right to have the application considered in accordance with the applicable scheme. The ultimate appointment remains subject to the scheme, eligibility requirements, availability of posts, and assessment of financial hardship.

In view of the above discussion and the settled position of law, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-college rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, and therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.