Sohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The father of the applicant expired on 10.09.2006. Thereafter, the applicant applied for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on 02.07.2007 on not being successful, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds.

On the other hand, the respondents, in their reply, have stated that they had considered and placed the case of the applicant before the CAC and that his case was considered for five vacancy years, but he was not found to be meritorious enough for recommendation. In support of their contention, the respondents have furnished the details in their reply, which are reproduced below :

They have further stated that to fill up the five vacancies earmarked for 2005, 2006 and 2007, 40 applications received up to 31.12.2017 were assessed in accordance with the standard guidelines dated 04.06.2015 for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was placed for consideration against the vacancy year 2006 and 2007 as the father of the applicant expired on 10.09.2006. The CAC which met on 11^th & 12^th January, 2018 and 18^th & 19^th January, 2018 did not recommend his case for appointment on compassionate ground as his name was not in the merit.

Respondents have stated that the case of the applicant was again placed before the Review CAC, which met finally on 01.03.2019 for consideration but the Review CAC did not recommend his case against the vacancy year 2008, 2009 and 2010-2011 as well for appointment on compassionate ground, as his name did not appear in the merit. Further, it has been submitted that the vacancies of the years 2008 and 2009 were utilized to comply with the order / judgment dated 30.11.2017 of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.807/2013 titled as Parmeshwer Meena and others Vs. Union of India and others decided on 30.11.2017.

Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and materials placed on record.

The father of the applicant expired way back in September, 2006 and the case of the applicant had been considered by the respondents along with other applicants against the vacancies earmarked for five vacancy years, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010-2011. The details of the vacancies and merit points are reproduced herein-below :

02 2007 02 70 01. Shri Prem Kumar S/o Late Doonger Ram – 82 02. Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal – 80 03 2008 01 70 Shri Virendra S/o Late Dineshwar Prasad (Appointed as per Hon’ble CAT) 04 2009 01 70 Shri Parmeshwar Meena S/o Late C.B.Meena (Appointed as per Hon’ble CAT) 05 2010-11 03 70 01. Shri Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Late Brij Mohan Meena – 79 02. Shri Sitaram S/o Late Bhagawan Lal – 76 03. Shri Rajveer Punia S/o Mahar Chand – 76

The case of the applicant was placed for consideration against the five vacancy years of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010-2011, as the father of the applicant expired on 10.09.2006, but the same was not recommended on merits. The details are reproduced herein-below :

So, it is clear from above that the respondents kept on considering the case of the applicant till as late as 01.03.2019, despite the fact that the father of the applicant had expired way back on 10.09.2006. The respondents, rather, did so in contravention of the judgment dated 04.05.1994 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others [JT 1994 (3) SC 525], wherein, it is clearly mentioned that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. In GSI, the reasonable period can be considered as five times consideration in CACs.

The department, by considering the cases for grant of compassionate appointment endlessly, much beyond the reasonable period of five years is, in fact, making a mockery of the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment i.e. helping the family of the deceased employee to cope up with the financial hardships immediately following the death of the breadwinner.

In the present case, the father of the applicant expired on 10.09.2006 and the applicant had initially applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 02.07.2007. Thus, the very object of providing immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee stood considerably diluted with the passage of time. The respondents, instead of taking a final decision within a reasonable period, continued to consider the case of the applicant against successive vacancy years up to 01.03.2019.

It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment to public posts and is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee in order to tide over the financial crisis arising on account of the sudden demise of the breadwinner. It is not intended to be a source of employment or to be claimed as a matter of right after a considerable lapse of time.

In the present case, the repeated consideration of the applicant’s case against different vacancy years, even after the lapse of several years from the date of death of his father, cannot be said to advance the very object for which compassionate appointment is provided. Rather, such repeated consideration has resulted in keeping the claim of the applicant alive for an unduly long period, despite the fact that his case was not found fit on merits in any of the vacancy years.

It is also significant that the respondents themselves have stated that the applicant’s case was considered against the vacancy years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010-2011 and that he was not recommended as his name did not appear in the merit. Therefore, there was no justification for continuing to consider his case endlessly against subsequent vacancy years, particularly when the very basis for compassionate appointment, namely, the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner, had ceased to exist with the passage of such a long period.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the repeated consideration of the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment over a period of more than twelve years from the date of death of his father is contrary to the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment. The applicant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a vested right merely because his case was considered by the respondents against successive vacancy years.

The present case does not warrant interference, the Original Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.