AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Monga, J
Under challenge herein is a letter/order dated 25.09.2007 (Annex.9), vide which, the petitioner was denied appointment on compassionate ground. Further direction has been sought to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of LDC from the date he submitted the application, with all consequential benefits.
Briefly speaking, relevant stated the facts, as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner possesses a B.A. degree and an ITI Certificate in the trade of Fitter. The petitioner's father, late Shri Badri Lal, was employed as a Helper in the respondent department. He passed away while in service on 12.03.2007. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 2.04.2007, following the death of his father. At the time of Shri Badri Lal's death, no departmental enquiry was pending against him. Shri Badri Lal had served from 01.08.1971 to 12.03.2007. In this regard, a certificate was issued by the Assistant Engineer on 20.04.2007. No member of Shri Badri Lal's family was employed in government service, as confirmed by the certificate dated 20.04.2007 issued by the Assistant Engineer.
2.2. The petitioner has made a representation dated 12.06.2007, in which he clarified that his brother, Chetan Kumar, had been adopted by Shri Narayan Mali (the real brother of Shri Badri Lal) on 10.01.2007. In the representation, the petitioner also requested that his application for compassionate appointment be considered objectively.
2.3. Vide letter dated 25.09.2007, the respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner's application on the grounds that the adoption deed of Chetan Kumar was not in accordance with law. As per Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, the adoption deed was invalid because it was neither registered nor did it include the consent of the biological parents of Chetan Kumar. Additionally, as Chetan Kumar was already in government service, the petitioner could not be given an appointment in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.
2.4. Upon receiving the letter dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure-9), the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.1, clarifying that the adoption was carried out with the consent of both sets of parents, and that the adoption deed was notarized. It was emphasized that Chetan Kumar was no longer considered the son of Shri Badri Lal, and therefore, there was no one else in the family employed in government service. The petitioner requested that he must be given a compassionate appointment. Following this, the petitioner and his mother personally met with the respondents on several occasions, but to no avail. In these circumstances, the petitioner personally met with the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 30.05.2009. The representation was forwarded to the Principal Secretary of the Water Resources Department on 02.06.2009. The Water Resources Department, in turn, forwarded the representation to the concerned respondent department on 05.06.2009. Additionally, the Chief Minister's Office forwarded the petitioner's representation to the respondent department on 16.06.2009. The respondent No.1 forwarded the petitioner's representation to respondent No.2 for necessary action on 22.06.2009.
2.5. Respondent No.2, by letter dated 07.07.2009, again asked respondent No.3 to report the actions taken on the matter. However, after this, no further progress was made. The petitioner and his mother continued to approach respondents No.2 and No.3 personally, but without success. Consequently, the petitioner sent a notice demanding justice on 21.02.2011, along with a copy of the writ petition. However, this too did not yield any results. Hence, this petition.
In response to the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondents as pleaded in their reply is as under:-
3.1. It is submitted that late Shri Badri Lal Mali was an employee of the respondents, who passed away while in service on 12.03.2007. However, the petitioner’s claim of being his adopted son is disputed and denied.
3.2. It is further submitted that Chetan Kumar, the elder son of the deceased, is already employed. The petitioner, Narendra Kumar, is alleged to be the adopted son of Shri Badri Lal. However, this adoption is contested as illegal, and the petitioner cannot be recognized as the adopted son of Shri Badri Lal. At the time of the alleged adoption, Shri Badri Lal already had a biological son, Chetan Kumar, who is gainfully employed, thereby making the adoption legally impossible. There was no formal giving or taking in adoption as required under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The alleged adoption deed is not valid, as it does not bear the signature of Shri Badri Lal's wife and is not registered, thereby violating the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In light of these facts, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
First and foremost, as trite as it may sound, it is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and should not be construed as some sort of reservation in cases where an employee dies in harness. What must be seen is whether the family of the deceased employee is facing financial hardship due to the untimely demise of the government employee, and whether immediate steps are required to alleviate their condition and prevent the family from falling into extreme poverty or starvation.
Present is a case, where brother of the petitioner was indeed in Government service though the petitioner claims that he was in private sector.
On the other hand, in the sworn affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been averred that the petitioner's brother was, in fact, working in the Panchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any appointment on compassionate grounds.
Furthermore, it was the defense of the petitioner that his brother had been given in adoption, and therefore, even if his brother is in government service, his right to be appointed on compassionate grounds cannot be withheld. There is no evidence of any kind provided by the deceased employee to the employer regarding such adoption. Moreover, there is nothing to show conclusive proof of adoption, other than a bald claim that the same has been notarized, which is not even signed by the deceased father of the petitioner. There is also no evidence to show that the father of the petitioner had executed an adoption deed, as the notice on which the claim is based, was not even signed by the deceased father of the petitioner.
As an upshot, no grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.