AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
In the instant O.A., the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure A/1), whereby his request for compassionate appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) has been rejected by the respondents.
The brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant, viz. Shri Raj Kumar, who was working as Asstt. Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, died on 11.10.2017 while in service. It has been averred that the applicant is the youngest child and only male surviving member in his family, which comprises his widow namely Santra Devi and five married daughters, out of which one namely Sarita is living with them due to marital discord. The deceased owned a piece of barren land in rural area measuring 3 acres at Village Jakhoda, Bahadurgarh, in which a small katcha-pucca house is built on 120 sq. yards where the family resides, and has no commercial/agricultural value. As there was no source of earning but liabilities to be taken care of, the family members of the deceased employee made an application for appointment of the applicant, viz. Sagar, in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. After completion of all formalities including verification of income and assets, the respondents placed his case before Police Establishment Board, however, the same was rejected on the ground “Less Deserving” vide order dated 19.12.2019 wherein the name of the applicant finds mention at Sl.No.17, which was communicated to him vide letter dated 30.12.2019.
It is further averred that the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 23.10.2019 considered 80 cases for appointment on compassionate grounds for various posts, however, rejected all the cases on different grounds. It is the contention of the applicant that he is well-deserving candidate and the respondents have not considered his case objectively and rejected the same arbitrarily on a vague premise “Less Deserving” without pointing out any shortcoming or how he is less deserving, as none has shown to be a deserving candidate. Besides that, the respondents have wrongly closed the matter, whereas as per the DoP&T instructions on the subject, the respondents are required to objectively consider his case every year. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the O.A. By placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, he argued that in the Screening Committee meeting held on 23.10.2019, total 289 candidates were considered, out of which compassionate appointments were granted only to 209 deserving candidates and 80 cases were rejected by the Screening Committee. While considering such cases, the Screening Committee followed the DOPT instructions and Standing Order 39/2018 and also kept in mind the financial condition of the deceased families. The other relevant factors, such as, the presence of earning members, size of family, age of deceased at the time of death, age of the children, essential needs of the family etc. were also taken into account as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994 SCC (4) 138. He further submitted that the mechanism adopted by the respondents-Delhi Police is very transparent and objective and no discrimination has been made against the applicant.
The learned counsel further highlighted that as per the report of DCP/Special Branch, a house of 150 yards value Rs.5 Lakhs, two plots value Rs.7.75 lakhs and 25 kanal and 18 Marla agriculture land value Rs.40.56 lakhs (Annual income Rs.20,000/-) at VPO Jakhoda, District Jhajjar, Haryana are in the name of the deceased. Besides that, pensionary benefits of Rs.35,85,902/- were paid to the wife of the deceased and she is also getting family pension of Rs.24,500/- + RIP per month. It is further submitted that so far as reconsideration of the applicant’s case in future is concerned, there is no bar for re-considering his name for compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and reiterated that the applicant has been wrongly denied compassionate appointment.
Vide order dated 11.09.2023, this Tribunal directed the respondents to make available the proceedings of the Screening Committee for its perusal. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents produced two folders carrying details of the proceedings of the Screening Committee for perusal of this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant sought for a copy of the comparative assessment chart and Minutes of the meeting, whereby the Committee has finalised the compassionate appointment cases. However, keeping in view the confidentiality of the documents, learned counsel for the applicant was allowed to peruse the same in the Court itself. After perusal of the same, he argued that the respondents have calculated retiral/pensionary benefits of Rs. 35,85,902/- under the column ‘Total (Pensionary benefits and Property Value)”, which is unfair assessment of the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment. He strengthened his arguments by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11881/1996 in the matter of Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 493, with a special reference to an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh in OA No. 060/00247/2016 titled Bhupinder Batra vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 10.03.2017, wherein the Tribunal had directed that pensionary benefits cannot be considered while deciding compassionate appointment cases.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings/judgments and original record of the proceedings of the Screening Committee made available by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 on various grounds. His main plea is that the respondents have taken into account the pensionary benefits and family pension paid to the family on demise of his father while assessing his candidature for compassionate appointment. Further, the respondents have rejected his case declaring him “Less Deserving”, but the order does not substantiate how the applicant was less deserving than other 209 cases approved for compassionate appointments. Another plea is that the respondents have not considered his case in subsequent years, as per the DoP&T instructions.
During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh in the case of Bhupinder Batra (supra), wherein the Tribunal had directed as under:
“....This point has also been considered in case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors, 2000 (6) SCC 493 wherein para 13, it is held as under:-
“13.But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family-this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation. Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd’s case, it has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substituted for providing employment assistance. It was also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondent’s family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.”
13.Accordingly, I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that impugned orders in both the O.As are non speaking and the respondents have travel beyond the policy of 1998 while rejecting their claim under compassionate appointment. Both these O.As are allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure A-7) in O.A No. 060/00247/2016 and order dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure 12) in O.A No. 060/00408/2016 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the policy dated 09.10.1998 by not considering the terminal benefits which were made available to the ward of deceased employee, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No costs.”
I also feel it necessary to note that the respondents have relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), wherein the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered and held as under:
“6.For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
7.It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the Government or the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis.”
The principles laid down therein have subsequently been followed in a consistent line of precedents.
As per the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, 80 cases for appointment in Delhi Police for various posts on compassionate grounds have been rejected for the reasons specified against them, wherein the name of the applicant is at Sl.No.17. However, a perusal of the original record made available by the respondents carrying the details of the proceedings of the Screening Committee, viz., the status of vacancies available, applications which were considered after due relaxation, year-wise detail of compassionate ground appointments, list of non-eligible candidates with ground of non-eligibility and details of fresh cases duly evaluated by the Committee on the basis of various parameters, such as, Rank, Date of Birth, Details of Education, Date of Retirement, Cause of death, Date of Application, Details about the applicants, Post applied, Status of dependents, Status of pensionary benefit(s) availed by the family, Status of property value owned by the family, Total of pensionary benefits and property value, Status of monthly pension etc. etc., revealed that the Screening Committee had considered total 289 candidates for compassionate appointment, following the DoP&T instructions and Standing Order 39/2018 and also keeping in view the financial resources and other relevant factors of the deceased families, in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), out of which the aforesaid claims of 80 candidates including the applicant, were rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.12.2019.
It is undisputed that all the candidates were subjected to the uniform criteria whatever adopted by the respondents and no fault can be found with action of the respondents in resorting to that nor can it be held that the criteria so adopted was wrong, on the basis of which they have selected 209 candidates, however, the applicant could not be selected as he was found ‘less deserving’ as compared to the selected candidates.
Admittedly, it is not the case of the applicant that there has been any discrimination or mala fide in the act of the respondents while considering his case for compassionate appointment as uniform yardsticks were followed with regard to all candidates.
Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, the present O.A. being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.