AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Doabia, J.—Father of the appellant was holding the post of Post Master on substantive basis. On 12.10.1994 he was a victim of
crossfiring between militants and security forces at Banihal. He died on the spot. The mother of the appellant submitted in application on
1.11.1994. She wanted her son, the present appellants to be given compassionate appointment. Respondents were of the view that the application
should be on a prescribed format. The procedural steps were taken. As per the appellant, her mother was informed that the claims of the appellant
would be considered on his attaining age of 18 years. Correspondence took place between the appellant and the respondent authorities. Some of
thte facts which emerge in this regard are as under :
(i) On 5.6.1995, the mother of the appellant was informed that the case of the appellantt would be taken up when he attains the age of 18 years;
(ii) On 3.10.1995, the appellant passed his Matriculation examination;
(iii) On 14.1.1996, the appellant attained the age of majority;
(iv) On 2.2.1999 information obtained that there is nothing adverse against the appellant;
(v) On 11.5.1999 the appellant was called upon to appear before the Div Inspector General, Post Offices, with documents indicating the date of
birth and property certificate;
It was on 21.8.2000, the appellant was informed that it would not be possible to offer compassionate appointment to the appellant. The mother
of the appellant made yet another compassionate appeal. In the letter so written she stated
(i) that she is looking after five children;
(ii) that the facts and figures regarding her income as Rs. 49,000/ are not correct;
(iii) that terminal benefits were given to the extent of Rs. 85,600;
(iv) that a sum of Rs. 6000/ which has been shown as pension is likely to decrease;
As there was no favourable response she preferred a writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed. The financial status of the mother of
the appellant was taken note of. What is stated by the learned Single Judge in this regard is being quoted below :
In this case, mother of the petitioner not only received exgratia payment from the State, but is also receiving monthly pension of Rs. 6212/ and
also an income of Rs. 167/ per month. This income would place the petitioner and family of the deceased well above the poverty line.
Stand of the respondents be also noticed.
It is stated that if the appointments are to be made on compassionate grounds then the financial status on which the family is placed is required to
be taken note of. The fact that the family of the petitioner was paid Rs. 85,600/ as retiral benefits and had also received Rs. 1,00,000/ from the
State Government as exgratia relief and the fact that some pensionary benefits are also being received are projected. It has further been stated that
quota of 5% is met for giving compassionate appointments. This quota stood exhausted and therefore, the claim of the appellant could not be
considered. Ultimately, it has been urged that the financial status of the family is not such which required compassionate appointment to be made.
The stand taken in this regard is being reproduced below :
In the present case the mother of the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs. 6379/ besides a monthly income of Rs. 2014/ of the petitioner
besides having assets of approximately 2 Lakhs out of which Rs. 85,623/ have been received from the department and Rs. 1 Lac as per
Annexure2 from State authorities. In totality the family of the deceased cannot be said to be in indigent circumstances as per the eligibility condition
(a). It is further stated that the petitioner at the time of the death of his father was minor and thus was not eligible as per eligibility condition (b)
because there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after number of years as the very basis of
compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets the immediate relief.
It is this factor which prevailed the learned Single Judge to reject the claim of the appellant. The appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 12
of the Letters Patent.
Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on number of decisions with a view to contend that compassionate appointment was
rightly declined. One of the judgments on which reliance has been placed is State of J&K v. Mohinder Singh, 2001(4) SCT 53 (J&K) : 2001 KLJ
44 . In the afore mentioned judgment it was observed that the compassionate appointment cannot be given after a gap of seven years. The fact that
the family income of Rs. 2000/ PM was taken note of. Another judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court is Jaspal Kaur v. State of Punjab,
2001(3) SCT 341 . In the said case the widow was getting pension at the rate of Rs. 3940/ PM. She had received a sum of Rs. 66,482/ as leave
encashment; Rs. 30,000/ as Group Insurance Scheme; Exgratia grant of Rs. 50,000/ GPF of Rs. 80,079 and G.P.F. Insurance of Rs. 10,000/. It
was held that she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. In addition to this reliance has been placed on the decisions which have
been quoted in the judgment under appeal. Thus what has basically led to the rejection of the claim of the appellant and what has prevailed the
learned Single Judge is the financial position as indicated above.
The financial position of a particular person does not depend upon the amount available with the mother. As to what is the size of the family,
which the mother of the appellant was supposed to take care of and whether after meeting the day to day expenses she is able to spend for herself,
are some matters which are required to be considered. The grant of retiral benefits is a normal feature and if this factor is to be taken note of then
there can hardly a person, who would be eligible for seeking the compassionate appointment. Post retiral benefits are benefits which accrue on the
death of the bread winner are normally payable. Therefore, this single factor would not stand in the way of the appellant. As a matter of fact this
was not the factor which stood in his way. What has stood in the way of the appellant is that quota of 5% vacancies has since been utilized.
The aforementioned observations are supported by the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment 1998. Subpara (c) of para 6 is relevant. The
same is reproduced below :
(c) The Scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been
introduced by the Government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government servants dying in
harness/retired on medical grounds. An application for compassionate appointment should however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the
family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on
compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets
and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the
presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc.
It be seen that the appellant attained the age of 18 years in 1996. For three years his case was under process. As to what was the quota
available during this period was required to be taken note of. This was not a case of delay. As a matter of fact the Union of India and its
functionaries had assured that as soon as the appellant attains the age of 18 years his case would be processed. As a matter of fact his case was
under process. They delay if any, in settling the matter lay with the respondents and not with the appellant.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the issue. In doing so they would examine the income and
also the size of the family. They would also examine the number of vacancies which are available in the year 1996 and during the years when the
matter was under consideration. They would also examine the question that in offering and filling the vacancies, what was the criteria adopted and
as to why the appellant could not be accommodated.
These are all questions on which decision has to be taken by the respondents. They would do so now within a period of three months from the
date copy of the judgment becomes available by the appellant to the respondents.