Rakesh Kumar vs Government of Nct of Delhi and Others

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Rakesh Kumar has filed the present writ petition seeking compassionate appointment and has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 25th January, 2011 by which O.A. No. 2295/2008 has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short, the tribunal).

We have heard Mr. Shyam Babu, Advocate, but do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The Petitioner''s father had expired on 23rd June, 2000 leaving behind widow, two married daughters, and two sons including the Petitioner. Elder brother of the Petitioner is working, though it is claimed that he is living separately and not supporting the family.

On the question of financial position of the Petitioner''s family, the tribunal has referred to the findings of the Screening Committee, which had examined relative financial condition of the applicants to ascertain and select the most deserving cases i.e. cases of applicants, who because of financial penury and other relevant circumstances deserve appointment. The findings recorded by the Screening Committee, as noticed in the order of the tribunal, are as under:

It is also stated that on receipt of her application, keeping in view the instructions/guidelines framed on the subject, enquiries were got conducted through the local police, and as per the report of the local police, the applicant owned a house measuring 100 yards worth Rs. 2 lacs, 4 Bigha 1 1/2 Bishwa agriculture land worth Rs. 9 lacs and had received pensionary benefit of Rs. 3,07,281/-, aggregating to Rs. 14,07,281/-. Besides, the applicant gets a monthly family pension of Rs. 1862/- + DA as per rules and is also earning Rs. 7200/- annually from the agricultural land as per local police report and further, the sons - Shri Rakesh Kumar (18 years age) and elder brother Jasbir Singh (23 years age) - are grown up and are capable of earning their livelihood, and that there is No. liability in the form of minor children or a young daughter who is to be brought up and to be married.

We do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the aforesaid valuation of the properties recorded should be ignored as before valuating the properties, hearing should have been granted to the Petitioner. There is No. such requirement. In case there was any error or mistake in valuation, it could have been pointed out and explained before the tribunal. Existence/ownership of the properties is not disputed. There is 5% ceiling for appointment on compassionate grounds and this factor and number of vacancies available have been kept in mind by the Screening Committee. The extent of financial distress/acuteness and dire need, have been given due regard for selecting the deserving candidates.

It is now well settled that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and is exercised rarely in suitable cases to enable a family to tie over sudden crises due to death of an earning member. It is to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution due to the untimely death. In view of the facts noticed above, the aforesaid requirements are not satisfied.

We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.