AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J. - Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner.
Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel , appears for the respondent-University.
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against denial of appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent-University.
Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner''s husband, (L) Micheal Khongjee, who was working with the respondent-University as a Laboratory Assistant, died in harness in the year 1998. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner made an application seeking appointment on suitable post on compassionate ground. In the meeting of the concerned Committee of the respondent-University, as held on 05.12.1998, the case of the petitioner was duly considered and she was recommended for appointment on any suitable Group ''D'' post. It appears from the record that despite such recommendation, the petitioner was not accorded appointment on regular basis but was engaged as a daily-rated Peon and she is said to have hitherto continued only in that capacity.
Having not been accorded regular appointment, the petitioner made a representation and ultimately, approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being WP(C)No.254 of 2013. In the said writ petition, it was stated on behalf of the respondent-University that the matter of giving regular appointment to the petitioner was under consideration. Taking note of such submissions, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.03.2014 with the observations that the respondent-University would take a decision in the matter within a period of three months. It is also pointed out that the respondent-University moved an application, being Misc. Case No.183 of 2014, for extension of time by another three months and the Court granted the respondent-University further time on 30.06.2015.
The petitioner would submit that despite passage of much time, the respondent-University failed to take a decision in her matter although, the requisite information as regards financial status was supplied to the authority concerned by way of an affidavit on 12.02.2015. The petitioner has pointed out that she served a notice through her lawyer on 12.05.2015 and when the notice also failed to evoke any response, she was left with no alternative but to approach this Court. The petitioner would contend that there was no reason to deny her appointment on compassionate ground, particularly when she made an application at the earliest possible time and in fact, her case was duly considered and recommendation was made in her favour in the year 1998.
The basic facts as stated in the petition have not been denied on behalf of the respondent-University in the counter affidavit. However, the respondents would submit that even when the petitioner was recommended for appointment on 05.12.1998, there was no vacancy available at the level of Group ''D'' to accommodate her and being aware of such a position, the petitioner, of her own volition, accepted the engagement on daily wage basis. As regards consideration of the petitioner''s case pursuant to this Court''s order dated 24.03.2014, the respondent-University would submit that in compliance of the order so passed, the Committee met on 03.07.2014, but found that the requisite information as to the present financial status of the petitioner was not furnished and hence, it was resolved that all the requisite information would be submitted by the petitioner so as to enable the Committee to consider her claim.
According to the respondent-University, the Committee again met on 25.11.2014 and again found the information furnished by the petitioner and other claimants for appointment on compassionate ground being not complete and accordingly, the applicants were asked to furnish the requisite information. Thereafter, according to the respondent-University, the Committee again met on 08.12.2014, but found that the declaration of assets and annual family income by the petitioner and some other applicants were not in proper order and form; and hence, the petitioner and others seeking appointment on compassionate ground were directed to furnish a fresh declaration in the form of oath duly signed by a First Class Magistrate. It is submitted that the respondent-University shall take a decision in the matter as and when the requisite declaration is received. A copy of the Minutes of the meeting dated 08.12.2014 has been placed on record by the respondent-University as Annexure-A the contents whereof are reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"In pursuant of the earlier decision of the Committee dated 25.07.2014, the office has obtained the declaration of assets and annual income of family of the dependants of NEHU deceased employees, and the same is placed before the Committee for scrutiny and consideration of Compassionate Appointment to eligible dependants.
On scrutiny of the respective declarations, the Committee is not satisfied with the declaration of assets and annual family income given by the dependants/applicants for compassionate Appointment in the prescribed format. Further, it was decided that the applicants be directed to submit a fresh declaration in the form of an Oath on the present status of the family duly signed by the First Class Magistrate, so as to enable the Committee to judiciously consider the Compassionate Appointment accordingly.
The office may circulate the prescribed format as per above recommendation."
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to appreciate the approach of the respondent-University so far the case of the petitioner is concerned.
As noticed, the petitioner''s claim for appointment on compassionate ground was indeed accepted by the respondent-University way back in the year 1998 but she was not accorded regular appointment, allegedly for want of vacancy in Group ''D'' level. It has not been clarified if no vacancy was at all available with the respondent-University for all this length of time so as to accord regular appointment to the petitioner in terms of the decision already taken.
Moreover, the manner of dealing with the matter for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent-University has left much to be desired. A look at the Minutes of its Committee meeting dated 08.12.2014 (reproduced herein above) makes it clear that the Committee chose not to consider the individual cases but a generalised resolution was taken about the alleged deficiencies and for fresh declaration from the applicants. As to what was the deficiency in the case of the petitioner and as to how the particulars submitted by her were not meeting with their requirements has not been stated in the alleged Minutes dated 08.12.2014.
True it is that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right and such a proposition is taken up by the employer as a welfare measure for the family of an employee who dies in harness but then, for its very nature, such a proposition for appointment on compassionate ground is required to be dealt with by the employer with the requisite sensitivity and seriousness. It is rather disquieting to notice that the petitioner, whose husband died in harness in the year 1998, though was found entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1998 itself, has been continued only as daily rated Peon by the respondents and then, her claim for regular appointment has not been taken to its finality despite an assurance given before this Court. This Court is clearly of the view that as regards the information and the documents, the petitioner ought to have been specifically put to notice on the requirements and then, a specific decision ought to have been taken in her case by the respondent-University without unnecessary delay.
In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent-University ought to take a final decision in the petitioner''s case at the earliest and for that matter, if any further information/documents are required from the petitioner, she could be called upon to do so while specifying the desired particulars to be furnished by her.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the requirement that the petitioner shall attend the office of the Registrar of the respondent-University on 14.03.2016. The Registrar, on appearance of the petitioner, shall specify the particulars required to be furnished by her and also inform her about the format, if any, on which such particulars are to be furnished. Upon receiving of such information from the Registrar, the petitioner shall be expected to furnish necessary particulars on or before the 31.03.2016. Upon the petitioner furnishing the requisite particulars, it would be expected of the respondent to examine her case afresh and to take final decision thereupon at the earliest, preferably within 30 days from the date of submission of the particulars by the petitioner.
No Costs.