AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-
“(i)For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for setting aside decision of District Level Compassionate Committee dated 04.03.2025 held under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Gopalganj as contained in memo no.186 dated 04.03.2025 with respect to the petitioner only whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father has been rejected and decision of District Level Compassionate Committee dated 12.01.2019 has been maintained.
A photocopy of extract copy of proceeding of district level compassionate committee dated 04.03.2025 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition.
(ii)For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on any suitable post of Class III or Class IV in place of his deceased father Late Ram Narayan Sahni considering the educational qualification of the petitioner.
(iii)For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitle in the eye of law may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father of the petitioner who was working as a Rajaswa Karamchari in the Circle Office at Gopalganj died in harness on 9.3.2013 leaving behind three sons and three daughters, the petitioner being the third son.
The petitioner filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground in the place of his father which was rejected in the meeting of the District Level Compassionate Committee held on 12.1.2019. The petitioner challenged the said rejection in CWJC no.6972 of 2019, which was disposed of by order dated 13.7.2022. Referring to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2018 (2) PLJR 951, this Court directed for scrutiny to be done in light of the judgment in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra) within a period of eight weeks.
It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the direction of this Court contained in order dated 13.7.2022, the petitioner filed a representation which has once again been rejected by the respondent authorities by the order impugned dated 4.3.2025 passed by the District Level Compassionate Committee under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. It is under these circumstances that the instant writ application has been preferred for the reliefs as stated herein above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the order impugned it would transpire that the respondent Committee has mentioned about the pension of the mother of the petitioner being Rs.22,000/- per month and the salary of his elder brother being Rs.35,000/- and has rejected his application on the said ground. It is submitted that there has been no objective consideration of the amount being earned by the sibling of the petitioner in view of the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra) as directed by this Court in the earlier order dated 13.7.2022. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of the Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra). Under these circumstances the order impugned rejecting the petitioner’s application be set aside and the writ application be allowed with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father.
The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court contained in order dated 13.7.2022, the District Level Compassionate Committee under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate once again considered the application of the petitioner and taking into consideration the pension of the mother of the petitioner being Rs.22,000/- per month and the salary of the elder brother of the petitioner being Rs.35,000/- per month thus the total income of the family being Rs.57,000/- per month which was sufficient for the maintenance of the members of the family, the application of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted that the order has been passed by the respondent-Committee strictly in accordance with the terms and the directions contained in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra). There is no illegality in the order impugned and no merit in the instant application. As such the same be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The relevant facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was working as a Rajaswa Karamchari having died in harness on 9.3.2013 leaving behind his widow and six children (three sons and three daughters), the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground which came to be rejected by the District Level Compassionate Committee on 12.1.2019.
The petitioner moved this Court in CWJC no.6972 of 2019, which was disposed of by order dated 13.7.2022 directing the respondents for getting the scrutiny done as directed in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra).
The respondents once again considered the representation of the petitioner and in the meeting of the District Level Compassionate Committee held on 4.3.2025, rejected the petitioner’s application for his appointment on compassionate ground.
In the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra), a Full Bench of this Court held as follows :-
“47.So far as the clarification that ‘gainfully employed’ means such employment from which the employed dependent of the deceased government servant may provide sustenance or can maintain other dependents is concerned, it has to be looked at ‘objectively’ and not ‘subjectively’. It is not for the authority considering the application for compassionate appointment to find out as to whether the dependent in employment is willing to take care of other dependents or not. It would not be his concern that the gainfully employed sibling is actually providing sustenance to the other dependents or not. Any argument that the dependent in employment is not willing to provide sustenance/maintenance to other dependents or that the employed one is living separately is beyond the scope and ambit of consideration under the given scheme and policy of the government and this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into enquiring the correctness of the facts so pleaded before the Court. It is because the writ Court is to be conscious of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been repeatedly held that a Court has no power to ignore a provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. We have quoted paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment of Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (supra) only to remind us what the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the following words;-
“the Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done”.
48.In terms of the clarification offered by the department, on receipt of information that other siblings of the applicant are in employment, the competent authority would be required to objectively look into the nature of the employment and the resources being generated by the employed sibling from such employment. On an objective consideration where it is found that other sibling of the applicant is gainfully employed in such an employment from which he/she is in a position and has capacity to provide sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents, the application for appointment on compassionate ground would not fit in the scheme in terms of the clarification at Annexure-‘A’ referred above but where it is found that the employment of the other sibling is of such a nature that it is not generating resources so as to make him able to provide both ends meet, for sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents of the deceased government employee and despite gainful employment of one of the dependents but because of his poor income from such employment he is not in a position to provide two ends meet to the other dependents, therefore they are on the verge of starvation, destitution and penury, the authorities of the State would be liable to consider the application of other dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. No other plea in any form whatsoever would be a ground to provide the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment.”
A perusal of the proceedings dated 4.3.2025 of the District Level Compassionate Committee would show that the Committee has taken into consideration the declaration of the petitioner in his application that his mother is earning a family pension of Rs.22,000/- per month and his elder brother is gainfully employed as a Panchayat Teacher and is earning a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. Thus the total monthly income of the family of the deceased employee is Rs.57,000/- per month.
The District Level Compassionate Committee further takes into consideration the report of the Circle Officer, Kesariya, according to which the income of Rs.57,000/- per month is sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the applicant. Taking these facts into consideration, the application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the District Level Compassionate Committee on 4.3.2025.
It may only be observed here that the compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of appointment and the object for granting the same is only to enable the family of the deceased dying in harness to overcome the financial crisis in which they have been left as a result of death of the sole bread-earner. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Indian Bank & Ors. vs. Promila & Ors.; (2020) 2 SCC 729.
Even in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held the policy decision of the Government that where any of the dependents of the deceased government servant is gainfully employed no other dependent would be entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment, as a sound policy. The fact that the dependent who is gainfully employed is living separately from other dependents cannot be a reason to provide appointment and whether the employed one lives together or separately, the other dependents would not get the benefit of compassion.
For the reasons as discussed herein above as also the report of the Circle Officer who came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the family being Rs.57,000/- was sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the deceased employee, the Court finds no illegality in the order of the District Level Compassionate Committee rejecting the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner.
The Court finds no merit in the instant application and the same is dismissed.