M. Swetha vs The Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant is the daughter of Smt.Latha Mohan, who was Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General (A&E) Trivandrum, who died of cancer on 11.7.2017. She is survived by two daughters, the applicant and her elder sister. Her father Mohan Kumar was found missing from 6.1.1996 and later, on the basis of a decree of the Additional District Munsiff Kuzhiturai in Tamil Nadu on 7.11.2009, he was declared dead and the applicant, her sister and mother were declared as legal heirs. Her mother, Mrs.Latha Mohan was the sole bread winner of the family. Her elder sister was married away in May 2017, prior to the death of the mother. At the time of death, the applicant was doing the final year in B.E Civil Engineering. On the financial help of the colleague of her mother, she completed the studies in 2018. The elder sister is also unemployed. After the death of the mother, it has become the burden of the applicant to look-after the grandparents who had to be hospitalised frequently. The applicant had to borrow money from the friends of the mother and relatives to overcome the financial emergencies. Annexure A-4 application under compassionate ground appointment scheme was given on 21.8.2017. In November 2017, an officer from the respondents' office visited the residence of the applicant and made enquiries about her and her grandparents. Necessary documents were furnished to him. Thereafter, there was no response and ultimately by Annexure A-5 order dated 12.4.2018, she was informed that her application for compassionate appointment was rejected. Annexure A-5 order was passed without hearing her or without giving her an opportunity of being heard. It is not a speaking order and her genuine grievances were not addressed. She had completed the studies with the help of the mother’s friends. After getting the terminal benefits of the mother, the amount was divided between the sisters, major portion of the amount was spent for repaying debts and other liabilities as her mother had undergone cancer treatment. She also had to look-after the grandparents. Her grandparents were forced to look for alliance for her and in 2019, she was married to Mr.Rajasekhar, an I.T professional and presently she is the mother of a girl child of 1 ½ years old. During the covid period, she could not take follow up action on Annexure A-5 communication. Thus, she caused to issue a lawyer notice, Annexue A-6, which was replied through Annexure A-7 detailing the reasons for rejecting her application for appointment.

According to the applicant, Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-7 are liable to be interfered with. After the death of the mother, the family had fallen in penury and without any means of livelihood. There was no other earning member in the family and employment assistance was the immediate necessity. Therefore, a direction is sought to the 3^rd respondent to grant her appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme.

The respondents filed reply statement denying the allegations in the Original Application. They have denied the claim that the mother had died leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The Annexure A-5 and A-7 were passed after the Departmental Screening Committee evaluating the entire facts and circumstances of the claim. The decision was taken in view of the economic status of the family, the benefits received by them and also taking into account the assessment of the need-cum-economic status of the family of the deceased employee. The Committee came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment. There is no reason to interfere with the same.

The respondents have relied on various authorities and submitted that the applicant has no vested right to claim employment assistance. What is important is the immediate need of appointment under the scheme in the event of there being no other earning member in the family. Application for compassionate appointment submitted by the applicant was considered in the light of Annexure R-3 (a) Scheme, following the evaluation system. It was found that the applicant was given an amount of Rs.23,32,383/- towards retirement benefits including DCRG of Rs.19,18,193/-, Rs.2,56,882/- towards encashment of leave, Rs.97,308/- as CGEGIS and s.60,000/- as DLI Scheme. Besides the same, a monthly pension of Rs.32,050/- along with dearness relief was granted from 12.7.2017 to 5.6.2021 and Rs.19,230/- with dearness relief from 6.6.2021. The Departmental Screening Committee had met on 9.4.2018 and considered the case of the applicant along with another and found that the family of the deceased is not in a state of penury due to the reasons stated in Annexure R2(c). Among other things, they considered the family pension granted to the applicant, as stated supra, the fact that the family is staying in a single storied two bed room house with an area of 518 sq.ft in six cents of land constructed in 2003 comprised in Re-Survey No.B 8/66 in Vilavancode Village in Marthandam Sub-district; the deceased had a liability of only Rs.26,500/- in the Co-operative Society which has been adjusted against the DCRG. Even though it was stated that they had few more debts on account of their mother’s treatment, which were not yet re-payed, its details were not furnished. According to the respondents, only those who need the relief most and are found to be in indigent condition can be given the benefit. The Committee found the application not fit to be recommended for appointment under the scheme and decided not to grant her the benefit. This application is filed on flimsy grounds.

In a rejoinder, the applicant submitted that even though the Scheme provides for granting the applicant an opportunity of being heard, such an opportunity was not given. It is repeatedly stated that terminal amounts have been used for re-paying various debts, after the death of the mother she had to look after the grandparents, had to spend many days in hospital for them, merely for the reason that various amounts were disbursed as terminal benefits, her entitlement for compassionate ground appointment cannot be denied. Citing a precedent of this Tribunal in O.A 836/2019, the applicant has submitted that she is entitled to get the same treatment.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Respective contentions were reiterated by the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant produced a copy of the order in O.A 836/2019 dated 23.9.2021 and argued that this is an eminently fit case for granting compassionate appointment. According to her, the mother of the applicant was the sole earning member of the family, after her sudden demise, the applicant has been put in utter financial difficulties; the elder sister who was married just a few months prior to the death of the mother is also un-employed; the applicant had to re-pay the debts incurred towards the treatment expenses of the mother and also had to look-after the aged and ailing grandparents. Relevant aspects were not considered by the Committee and her application was rejected mechanically.

On the other hand, according to learned Standing Counsel, the applicant could not make out that she falls within the parameters of the scheme drawn up by the government. She also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in O.A 515/2019 which is in respect of one Ms.Devika.S.S whose case was considered by the Committee on the same day when the case of the applicant was considered. Besides this, the decisions in Central Bank of India v. Nitin [2022 Liv Law (SC) 690], State of Himachal Pradesh and anr v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653], Union of India and another v. Shashank Goswami and Anr [(2012) 11 SCC 307], Bharath Petroleum Corpn. Ltd and ors v. T.Padmakumari Amma [2007 (1) KHC 376] were also relied upon.

It is not disputed that the mother of the applicant had died at the age of 50 due to cancer, on 11.7.2017. From the documents produced by the applicant, it cannot be said that she had died after prolonged treatment. Anyhow, she is survived by two daughters, the applicant and her elder sister. The elder sister was married away in May 2017. At the time of death, the applicant was prosecuting final leg of her B.E Civil Engineering. Later, she has passed out. She gave the Annexure A-4 application for compassionate appointment on 21.8.2017. But it was rejected and Annexure A-5 was communicated to her on 12.4.2018. Going by the documents produced along with the application, even after receipt of Annexure A-5, she kept mum as if she was not agitated. Meanwhile, she was married to Mr.Rajasekhar, an I.T professional in 2019 at the age of 22. After long silence, on 5.4.2022, she caused to issue a lawyer notice, Annexure A-6, protesting against Annexure A-5 communication. That was replied through Annexure A-7 dated 19.4.2022 and thereafter she approached this Tribunal in July 2022 seeking to quash Annexures A-5 and A-7 and to direct the 3^rd respondent to grant her compassionate appointment.

As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel, appointment under compassionate ground scheme cannot be sought as a matter of right. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment which is done by issuing publication inviting application to fill up the vacancies, following the rules of recruitment, reservation etc. Appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme being an exception, it has to be strictly construed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the oft-quoted decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], has held as follows:-

It is also settled by authorities that the lookout of the Court is whether the applicant is a dependant of the deceased employee, whether a scheme is in vogue and the application given by the dependant has been considered strictly in conformity with the scheme. Here, Annexure R-3 (a) and (b) clearly indicate that guidelines have been evolved by the respondents to examine the entitlement or otherwise of an application for employment assistance.

It is true that Annexure A-5 order does not contain the details that prompted the 3^rd respondent to reject Annexure A-4 application. Annexure A-7 was issued only after she had caused to issue a lawyer notice. The applicant is admittedly the daughter of the deceased. Her father who was an employee in Government of Tamil Nadu had gone missing in 1996. Thereafter, the burden of bringing up the two girl children had fallen on the mother. Later, she also passed away at the age of 50. But by the time, the elder sister was married and the applicant was prosecuting her studies in B.E Civil Engineering.

The very crucial consideration in an application for compassionate appointment is whether the family of the deceased was living in penury and in utter financial stringency. This aspect has been considered by the Departmental Screening Committee consisting of three senior officers in the office of the 3^rd respondent. They took note of the fact that the children were given retirement benefit of Rs.23,32,383/-. Besides, the applicant was given a pension of Rs.32,050/-. This might have been stopped after the marriage of the applicant. Even though the applicant wanted to say that the amount received as terminal benefits had to be used for defraying the liabilities created for the treatment of the mother etc, particulars were not given either before the Welfare Officer or in the application; the lawyer notice is also silent on the same. Details were not given at the time of final hearing also. On the other hand, according to the respondents, to their knowledge, she had only a liability of Rs.26,500/- in the Co-operative Society which was adjusted against the DCRG. The applicant has a place of abode; it is a building having two rooms with area of 518 sq.ft in six cents of land. The elder sister was married away before the death of the mother. Now, the applicant also has been married and entrusted with an I.T professional. Even when it was stated that she had the liability to look after the grandparents etc., that is not a valid ground for considering an application under the compassionate appointment scheme.

The immediate next consideration is whether the applicant could tide over the sudden crisis created due to the unexpected expiry of the mother at a comparatively younger age. But the subsequent turn of events clearly demonstrate that the family could withstand the crisis. It is true that the un-time demise of the mother at a pre-mature age must have caused mental shock and feeling of aloofness to the daughters especially to the applicant. In fact, the death of the mother had orphaned her, but the crucial question is whether that had put them in utter penury and financial crisis, despite the fact that there is no other earning member in the family. After scrutinising all circumstances, the answer is in the negative. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the comparative financial difficulties faced by the applicant has been considered by the Committee in proper perspective. Necessarily, such an application has to be construed strictly.

It also requires to be highlighted that even after sending Annexure A-5, Annexure A-6 was caused to be sent after a lapse of more than 4 years. This delay cannot be ignored lightly. Meanwhile, the applicant was got married to an I.T professional. Till that time, she must have been paid the family pension of the mother. The point I endeavor to highlight is that the applicant was never in penury or financial stringency which alone call for employment assistance. Whatever crises faced by them could be tackled. There are materials to say that the family was not in a stage of penury or financial crisis.

Even though Annexure R-3(b) revised evaluation system for shortlisting applications for appointment on compassionate ground scheme has been cited by the respondents, it seems that the Committee did not make any evaluation on that basis. But on a rough estimation, it seems that even if such an evaluation is made, in the given circumstances, applicant might not get more than 60 or 65 marks out of total marks of 165/-.

The learned counsel for the applicant was very much sceptical about not giving an opportunity of being heard as provided in Clause 13(c) of Annexure R3(a) scheme. In my assessment, that also cannot be raised as a big issue to grant any relief to the applicant. In fact, such a clause only enables the Committee to grant opportunity for personal hearing, if necessary, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. It is the discretion of the Committee to grant opportunity, in the case of any doubt. It is only obligatory. In the given facts, the Committee cannot be blamed for not hearing the applicant in person.

The object of employment assistance scheme is to grant appointment to a dependant member of the family of the deceased official dying in harness leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. On a collocation of all these circumstances, I am not convinced that the applicant is entitled to be considered under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.

Annexure A1- True copy of the medical records of the mother of the applicant.

Annexure A2- True copy of the death certificate of the mother of the applicant.

Annexure A3- True copy of the B.E. Degree competition certificate of the applicant.

Annexure A4- True copy of the application for appointment on compassionate ground dated 21.08.2017 submitted by the applicant.

Annexure A5- True copy of rejection letter for compassionate appointment issued by the 4^th respondent dated 12.04.2018.

Annexure A6- True copy of the legal notice sent by an Advocate Mr. Tampi Raj from Tamil Nadu dated 05.04.2022.

Annexure A7- True copy of the reply letter issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 19.04.2022.

Annexure R3(a)- O.M No. F. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training.

Annexure R3(b)- True copy of the Circular No. 34 issued in No. 09-Staff Entt. (Rules)/C.A/12-2105 issued by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Annexure R3(c)- True copy of the proceedings of the Screening Committee for Compassionate Appointment.