AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)
This O.A. has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant for quashing the orders/letters dated 22.7.2009, 9.10.2017 and 4.12.2017 passed by the respondents, rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment in place of his father and for direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the applicant under Boards order dated 30.7.2012 issued from the office of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3.
The facts in brief are that Ram Kishun who was Ticket Collector died on 6.9.1989. Thereaftter, on 15.10.1991, first application for compassionate appointment was given by Shiv Dei, wife of the deceased employee for appointment of Ram Bihari (eldest son). Applicant No. 2 again given application on 30.3.1992 for providing appointment to applicant No. 1 (younger son) but when no action was taken, applicant sent letter on 4.8.1997 for compassionate appointment in favour of Jagdish (applicant No.1). Elder son of the deceased employee died on 8.8.1997. Applicant No.2 sent reminders to the respondents for compassionate appointment. Last application was made on 15.6.2009. On 22.7.2009, it was informed to the applicant that claim of the applicant is time barred, therefore, no appointment can be given. However, no information in respect of rejection was given to the applicant. Vide letter dated 30.7.2012 General Manager Personnel informed the Divisional Railway Manager Moradabad that there is no case under provision for rejecting the claim as time barred in accordance with Railway Board letter dated 9.11.2012. It was again mentioned in the letter that case of applicant be considered again in the light of observation given in the letter dated 30.11.2012. Again vide letter dated 9.10.2017 and thereafter on 4.12.2017, letters were issued from the office of Divisional Railway Manager Moradabad and from the office of General Manager Karmik that the matter was time barred and the decision has already been taken, no fresh decision is required.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, stating therein that deceased employee was expired on 6.9.1989, leaving behind the widow, two married daughters and two sons. Applicant No. 2 has requested for compassionate appointment for her younger son Jagdish on 19.8.1997 after 8 years of death of deceased employee, while her two sons were major and applicant no.1 attained majority on 8.10.1991, according to his date of birth i.e. 8.10.1973. The case was rejected by the department as time barred. It is further submitted that no application dated 30.3.1992 was received in the office. Case of applicant No.1 was regretted being time barred in the year 1997 and widow was informed accordingly vide letter dated 10.11.1997 and 24.4.1998.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that rejection of claim of the applicant as time barred is a clear cut violation of letter dated 30.7.2012 issued by the General Manager Personnel, Baroda House, New Delhi and applicant No. 2 has submitted application for compassionate appointment for applicant No. 1 on 30.3.1992 and there is no delay in the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that no application dated 30.3.1992 has been received in the office of respondents. Applicant No. 2 has applied for compassionate appointment for applicant No. 1 on 19.8.1997 after 8 years of the death of deceased employee and just after the death of his elder son Sri Ram Bihari, who died on 8.8.1997, for whom she has earlier applied for compassionate appointment.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
From perusal of record, it is evident that after the death of her husband, applicant first time applied for compassionate appointment in favour of his elder son Sri Ram Bihari and after the death of Ram Bihari on 8.8.1997 she again applied for compassionate appointment in favour of applicant No. 1 on 19.8.1997. In the counter reply, respondents have clearly stated that he has not received application dated 30.3.1992 moved by applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment to applicant No. 1.
As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.
It is also settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis.
In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 525, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been observed as under:-
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
Apex Court in the case of State of Chhatisgarh Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 600, has observed that the “Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No body can claim appointment by way of inheritance.”
In the case of State of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766, it is observed that “Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need for compassionate appointment.” Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
“The compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
In the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 661, the Hon’ble Apex Court further reiterated that “Compassionate Appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule, that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible person to participate in the selection process.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court once again in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Shashank Goswami and another reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2294 has been pleased to observe that “Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is based on the premises that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly such a claim cannot be upheld on the touch stone of Article 14 or 16 of Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service.”
In the instant case, father of the applicant expired on 6.9.1989. Applicant No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment for applicant No. 1 in the year 1997 because no application dated 30.3.1992 is received in the office of respondents. Substantial period of more than 30 years have expired after the death of the deceased. It would not be just and proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment after a gap of more than 30 years. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds taken in the present O.A. lacks merit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, O.A. is not liable to be allowed and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.