Smt. Sunita vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Others

V.K. Shali, J.—Rule with the consent of the parties.

The writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This is the second writ petition filed by the Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by Sh.S.N. Shrivastava, Joint Commissioner for Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The brief facts are stated that the Petitioner was married to one Sh. Suresh Kumar, who died on 2nd May, 2005 while in service. He had served the Delhi Police for a period of more than 22 years. She was purportedly living separately for a period of 5 to 6 years prior to the death of her husband though there was an allegation of dissertation against her. The Petitioner did not have any issue from the said wedlock. Her parents are also stated to have expired. The Petitioner accordingly sought an appointment on compassionate ground by Delhi Police which request of the Petitioner was turned down on the ground that the Petitioner was living separately and was given maintenance by her husband @ Rs. 1,300/- per month. In addition to this, she had been granted the other terminal benefits like family pension while as the GPF/ gratuity amount were granted to the mother of the deceased employee. The Petitioner did not have anybody dependent on her. The request for compassionate appointment was turned down primarily by the Respondent on the ground that she was living separately from the deceased.

The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of her application filed a writ petition bearing No. 12605/2006 which came to be decided by this Court on 21.8.2007 by giving direction to the Respondent to consider the request of the Petitioner afresh taking in view all the circumstances and pass an order. Liberty was given to the Petitioner, in case she still feels aggrieved, to assail the said order.

The order dated 15.10.2007 is the order which has now been passed by the Respondents in pursuance to the earlier round of litigation. The Petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the said order afresh on the ground that the Respondents have once again repeated the old reasoning that the Petitioner was living separately from her husband and rejected the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It has been also stated in the writ petition that merely on account of the fact that the Petitioner is living separately or that family pension has been granted, would not be a ground for denying the benefit of compassionate appointment especially in the light of the fact that she is not only a widow but does not have parents also.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 15.10.2007.

I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police. The law regarding the grant of appointment on compassionate ground is very well settled in catena of authorities. The broad parameters of grant of compassionate appointment is governed by the following principles:

(i) The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of vested right and it is held repeatedly that it is not a normal mode of recruitment.

(ii) The ground of compassionate appointment is given to a person only to tide over the initial shock suffered by the family on account of sudden and untimely demise of the earning member of the family.

(iii) While considering the question on compassionate appointment merely on account of the fact that the proposed beneficiary or his family members have received the terminal benefit or compensation should not be the ground for denial of benefit of compassionate appointment.

(iv) The total number of vacancies fallen to the share to be filled up by direct recruitment in the quota of Groups ''C'' and ''B'' on compassionate appointment should not normally exceed maximum of 5% of the number of vacancies at a given point of time.

Taking in view all these broad parameters, if we examine the order which has been passed, it has taken into consideration not only the factum that the Petitioner was living separately from the deceased employee for a period of 5 to 6 years prior to the date of death but also the fact that she is receiving a sum of Rs. 4,530/- per month on account of family pension. It has been noticed in the order that the Petitioner is alone and is present by residing with her brother at A-422, Dakshin Puri, Delhi and thus she is not carrying any liability and the aforesaid amount is sufficient enough for a person to maintain herself.

In addition to this, the impugned order passed takes note of the legal position as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case titled Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered as a matter of vested right. This benefit is granted only to tide over the initial shock of financial crisis.

A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that not only it is a reasoned order but it is an order which has been passed assessing the pros and cons of the matter and the Petitioner''s case has not been found to be a case fit to be granted on compassionate ground. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the order or in the decision making process which followed by the Respondents.

The writ petition is in my considered opinion is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.