AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that she is the youngest daughter of one Parashuram who was in service with the second respondent as AG III (D) at the Shimoga District Office of the second respondent. The father of the petitioner is said to have died while in harness on 7.6.2000 leeving behind his wile and three daughters. The petitioner is said to be a B. Sc. graduate and had made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of her father i.e. on 1.12.2000. Pursuant to which the petitioner was called upon to furnish certain particulars and all of which had been submitted by the petitioner promptly. The District Manager of the second respondent had forwarded the application to the Zonal Office of the second respondent at Channel The petitioner after waiting for a considerable time and not having received any response had approached the fourth respondent, who had passed an order dated 13.7.2006 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was intimated that such a decision was taken since there was a policy decision of the respondents not to consider the applications beyond three years from the date of the order. Since the petitioner''s application was dated 1.12.2000, the same did not merit consideration and it was accordingly rejected. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.
It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was well within the time prescribed under the relevant Schema, which was applicable to the respondents. The same having been rejected is not justified. The pathetic condition of the family of the petitioner has not been taken into account in not providing employment on compassionate grounds though the petitioner''s application was well within time. The applications filed at a later point of time having been taken up for consideration results in arbitrary treatment of the petitioner, who had lodged her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds at the earliest point of time. Since the petitioner and her family were well deserving of such a consideration, the same not having been considered on & purported policy decision of not taking into account the applications, which were beyond three years from the date of rejection is wholly arbitrary and unjust. Further, the Learned Counsel would submit that there is a quota for appointment for each year commencing from the year 2005. However, there was no such quota at, the time when the petitioner had made an application. The long silence on the part of the respondents and ultimately rejecting the application in the manner aforesaid denies an opportunity to which the petitioner was entitled amongst other candidates who have been considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, though applications were later in point of time. It is therefore contended that the respondents be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is argued that it would be inhuman to reject the claim of the petitioner while considering the claim of others though the petitioner''s application was earlier in queue in seeking such appointment.
The petition is resisted by the respondents who have filed statement of objections to contend that the petitioner has no vested right in seeking to be appointed on compassionate grounds. It is the settled legal position that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is neither compensatory nor compulsory The guidelines insofar as Appointment on compassionate grounds have been kid down by the Apex Court, which amongst other things is that the appointment in public bodies should be made- with a single object that such appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis of having lost a bread winner foot that object would be lost with efflux of time. Since the petitioner''s application was at a point of time when there was no vacancy and as such it could not be accommodated and by the time the application could be considered much time had elapsed and hence, the very object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is lost It is in this background that a policy decision was taken by the respondents- to consider only those applications where it would be necessary to provide succors to a family, which has lost its breadwinner. It is in that vein the applications, which were more than three years old from the date of the impugned order were to be ignored. It is secondly pointed out that the family of the deceased-employee had been conferred with terminal benefits, part from an addition having been provided, it could not be said that this family was in dire straits and had to be provided employment forthwith, which in any event, was not a vested right and was not capable of being afforded to the petitioner at the relevant point of time.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances, the legal position is clear that the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor can an employer be compelled to provide such amployment. The object is to bring the family out of a crisis which would have lost its breadwinner. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondents the object is loat with efflux of time, If the family has managed to survive over a period of time, the ground on which such appointment is sought is no longer relevant In the face of the circumstance that the family has received a substantial amount of money by way of terminal benefits apart from being assured an annual income 3.4 the hardship and suffering which is sought to be pleaded is not present. Therefore the question of directing the respondents to reconsider their decision, not to take into account the applications, which were more than three years old as on the date of the impugned order is not warranted.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.