Shalendra vs M/o Commerce

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The father of the applicant, by name Jaikaran Singh was appointed as Economic Investigator in the year 1981 in the respondent organization. By the year 2006 he was working as Research Officer, and he was murdered on 11.03.2006. The applicant was of 12 years age at that time. After he attained the age of 21 years, his mother made a representation on 04.08.2014 with a request to appoint him on compassionate grounds. On 10.03.2015, the respondents informed the mother of the applicant that the benefit cannot be extended since she was herself, accused of committing murder of deceased employee. The criminal case is said to have ended in acquittal on 05.07.2016. Thereafter, representations were made reiterating the earlier request. On 03.08.2018 the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant by furnishing various reasons. This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds.

The applicant contends that whatever may have been the justification in not considering his case at a time when a criminal case was pending against his mother, there was no basis to deny his claim after her acquittal. It is also stated that retiral benefits were extended to his mother, after acquittal.

We heard Sh. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents.

The concept of compassionate appointment is not contained in any recruitment or service rules. At one point of time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that in case an employee in public service dies in harness and the family of the employee is facing penury, the feasibility of appointing one of the dependents of the deceased employee can be considered. Over the period, the concept has assumed such ramifications, that it has become almost an indefeasible right of succession, compared to one in respect of ancestral properties. The financial status of the family or the extent of the benefits that accrued to the family after the death of the employee have all been reduced to the matters of no consequence. The only consideration which is projected is that the employee died and the dependents are entitled as a matter of right, to get employment even by relaxing the qualifications or by creating vacancies. The extent of damage caused to the public employment as such, is not difficult to be imagined. At a time when lakhs of highly qualified Graduates and Post Graduates hailing from families which did not have benefit of any employment for ages together are remaining unemployed, the concept of compassionate appointment is made to flourish.

One unfortunate aspect of this case is that, the deceased is said to have been murdered by none other than by his wife i.e. the mother of the applicant herein. The criminal trial went on for some time and at a time when the case was pending the application was made and it was rightly rejected in the year 2015.On acquittal, the mother may have been extended the death-cum-retirement benefits of the employee. However, we cannot authoritatively assert that the applicant had an indefeasible right to be appointed on account of death of his father and it remained intact for the past more than a decade. Whether one goes by the principles of equality or the transparency and efficiency in the public employment, such claims cannot be entertained. It is only in exceptional cases, where employee may not have become eligible for pension or the benefits after his death are too minimal to enable the family to sustain, that such a facility can be extended. As of now, the concept has developed to such an extent that in certain cases the dependents are waiting for the death of the employed person before his retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court which evolved the concept may not have imagined that the facility would assume such proportions. A time has come, when a pragmatic approach, keeping in view, the larger public interest, needs to be adopted. In the OA the applicant did not challenge the two orders of rejection.

We do not find any merit in this OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.