AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To call for records of the case and quash/set aside the order dt. 24.1.2017 (Annexure A-1) and Proceedings of Committee dt. 2.8.2008 on the basis of which the order dt. 24.1.2017.
To direct the respondents to provide appointment to applicant on compassionate ground at the earliest.
To award cost in favour of the applicants and pass any other order or orders, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case".
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1 The father of the applicant Shri Gugan Ram was in the employment of the respondents and expired on 15.08.2003. The mother of the applicant thereafter applied for appointment of her elder son as a Constable. However, the elder son was not able to get the appointment. Later on the mother of the applicant requested for compassionate appointment of her younger son (the applicant in the present OA). Not getting any response in the matter, she filed OA No.3847/2013 before this Tribunal in which the respondents contended that the applicant‟s claim had been rejected vide order dated 02.02.2011. The OA was disposed of on 05.08.2014 (Annexure A-4) with a direction to the respondents to send a copy of the order dated 02.02.2011 to the applicant through which, as per the respondents, the case of the applicant was rejected.
2.2 The respondents supplied a copy of the order dated 02.02.2011 referred above to the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed OA No.4085/2014, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure A-5) by quashing the order dated 02.02.2011 and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days. Consequently, a fresh order was issued on 14.01.2017 (Annexure A-1), which has been challenged in the present OA.
2.3 The parties have filed the counter reply and rejoinder which form the basis of the statement of facts as given above. The arguments for and against find place in the discussion below. The respondents have also filed OM dated October 9, 1998 of the Department of Personnel & Training with the subject Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government-Revised consolidated instructions‟, alongwith the scheme and, STANDING ORDER NO. 39/2018 COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENTS IN DELHI POLICE GENERAL SCHEME‟
2.4. Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that all facts relating to the rejection of the case of the applicant have not been revealed by the respondents and it is not clear how the selection process for compassionate appointment was carried out. He has also argued that the mere fact that the applicant‟s family had an earning member was not enough for the case of the applicant to be rejected and the respondents should have looked into all aspects relating to financial condition of the family and not rejected the case of the applicant merely because the family had an earning member. He has also submitted that the elder brother of the applicant, who was working was living separately and had a family of his own at the time of his father‟s death and was not providing any support to the applicant‟s family. In this connection he has referred to the Scheme for compassionate appointment circulated with OM dated October 9, 1998 of the Department of Personnel & Training. As per para 10 of this, in deserving cases even where there is an earning member in the family a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment. Whether the earning member is residing with the family and is a source of support becomes a relevant consideration. Factors such as assets and liabilities, number of dependents of the deceased Government servant and income and liabilities of the earning member need to be taken into consideration.
2.5 Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the order of this Tribunal in another OA No.16/2015, with a different set of parties, dated 11.05.2016 in which the respondents were directed to supply copies of the documents to the applicant giving details of the selection process.
Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in OA No.4085/2014 dated 14.12.2016, the case of the applicant was duly considered and reasoned and speaking order was passed while rejecting it. The said order dated 24.01.2017 is on record at Annexure A-1. She also submitted that there is only the availability of 5% of the vacancies for compassionate appointments and all relevant factors were taken into account and only those persons who were more deserving than the applicant were appointed. It is also submitted that the exercise has been carried out with full objectivity and there was no need to produce all the documents in this regard.
3.1 Learned counsel for respondents also referred to para 8 of the Scheme for compassionate appointment‟ referred above which indicates that the issue of delay is an important factor in considering cases of compassionate appointment and even when the request comes after five years of death it could be considered but would require very careful examination. The implication is that a period of five years from death is just about the limit for consideration for compassionate appointment.
3.2 She also referred to Para-6 (b)- cases where there is an earning member of Delhi Police Standing Order No. 39/2018 Compassionate Ground Appointments in Delhi Police General Scheme, which reads as follows:-
"(b) Compassionate ground appointment will not be offered to the dependent of the deceased police personnel, where there is already an earning member i.e. Govt. Servant (including public sector undertaking). However, in case a married daughter of deceased is a Govt. employee then the Screening Committee will take a decision, keeping in view the status and all other aspects of the deceased‟s family".
I have carefully gone through the pleadings and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides.
Basically the case of the applicant is that all the documents of the process by which 85 out of 168 candidates were selected, have not been brought on record and as such it cannot conclusively be said that it was a fair process. While so arguing, the applicant has, however, been unable to point out any instance of a candidate less deserving than him having been selected in the process. Despite sufficient opportunity, he has also not been able to furnish any document which could so indicate. In turn, he has prayed for directions to call for the records from the respondents. In support of this, the order of this Tribunal in OA No.16/2015 dated 11.05.2016 has been cited. A perusal of that order clearly indicates that it is in reference to a letter dated 20.12.2013, which was a non-speaking and cryptic order. For the applicant to derive any force from the said order in support of his arguments it needs to be seen whether the present order dated 24.01.2017 is on the same footing as was the letter referred to in the order cited above.
It is true that all the documents relating to the selection process are not on record. But it also needs to be acknowledged that it was not required to be so in the circumstances of the present OA. The impugned order clearly mentions that the Screening Committee took into account all the relevant factors such as presence of earning members, the size of the family, age of the deceased at the time of the death, age of the children and the essential needs of the family as also the ceiling of 5% in which the appointments had to be made.
The order also mentions that the whole object for granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the dependents of an employee dying in harness to tide over the financial crisis and help the family to get over the emergency. The order clearly mentions that taking into account all the factors mentioned the case of the applicant was found less deserving than the similarly placed other cases.
Regarding the effect of having an earning member on the consideration for compassionate appointment, without going into much detail, the main point is that it is a factor to be kept in mind. In the present case, though the fact that one of the elder brothers is employed has been mentioned in the impugned order, it cannot be said that it was the sole reason for the applicant not being given compassionate appointment. This factor is subsumed in the overall scheme of things in which the decision was taken.
Before coming to a conclusion it must be noted that the father of the applicant expired in the year 2003 and whatever be the reasons more than 15 years have already elapsed. In the intervening period, there have already been two rounds of litigation and this is the third round on the subject. With such a length of time having already gone past hardly any element of what would ordinarily be a compassionate appointment still remains.
The applicant has failed to establish that the order dated 24.01.2017, which is sought to be set aside is based on non application of mind, or is not reasoned or suffers from any other defect. There is always scope for more information to be provided but practicability has also to be kept in mind. The applicant has not even alleged any irregularity, leave alone demonstrate it, and as such it would be much beyond the scope of the present OA to get into a fact finding expedition by calling for records.
For the reasons given above, the present OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.