AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
The applicant is challenging the order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure A-1), whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by the respondents.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the applicant died in harness on 27.12.2004 while working on the post of Dak Assistant. After the death of his father, the applicant, submitted an application form on 28.10.2015 (Annexure A-3) for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, vide the order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure A-1), his claim has been rejected on the ground that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) has not recommended his case as the family was not found to be in an indigent (financially distressed) condition vis-à-vis more deserving cases. The applicant submits that the respondents have not provided any information regarding the marks obtained by the applicant vis-à-vis the other candidates selected for appointment on compassionate ground.
The respondents have filed their reply in which they have stated that as per the guidelines issued by the DoPT dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure R-1), CRC considers the cases of compassionate appointment by adopting a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family taking into consideration their assets and liabilities of unmarried daughters/minor sons etc. and all others 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.
There were 42 applications for compassionate appointment against the total 9 vacancies for the post of PA/Postman/MTS for the years 2016-17. The case of the applicant was considered by the CRC in the meeting held on 28.06.2017. The applicant scored 63 points under the various heads while the last selected candidate scored 65 points. As such, the case of the applicant was not recommended by the CRC due to non-availability of requisite number of vacancies for the year 2016-17.
The family of deceased has been paid terminal benefits of Rs.2,23,493/-excluding the amount of insurance policy. The family is also getting family pension of Rs.3900/- per month + dearness relief at the permissible rates. The fact of all the dependent family members has also been taken into consideration by the CRC and points were awarded accordingly.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
The respondent department vide circular dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure R-1) has adopted a system of allocation of points to various attributes based on a hundred point-scale. The said evaluation system has eight parameters viz; (a) Family Pension (Basic excluding DA & Allowances) (MM points – 20), (b) Terminal benefits (DCRG, GPF, CGEGIS, Leave Encashment & Pension Commutation) (MM points – 10), (c) Monthly income of earning members and income from property (MM points – 5), (d) Moveable/immovable property (MM points – 10), (e) number of dependents (MM points – 15), (f) number of unmarried daughters (MM points – 15), (g) Central Administrative Tribunalnumber of minor children (MM points – 15), (h) left over service (MM points – 10). In addition, 15 grace points are given in cases where the applicant is a widow. Under these parameters, when the case of the applicant was considered by the CRC in it’s meeting held on 28.06.2017, the applicant was awarded total 63 points out of 100. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant has not disputed the break-up of marks allotted to him in his rejoinder. Sixty five marks allotted to the last selected candidate are higher than the 63 marks allotted to the applicant.
It is also evident from the record that the father of the applicant died in the year 2004, whereas application for grant of compassionate appointment was submitted by the applicant on 28.10.2015. The fact that the family survived for a substantial period of time after the death of their bread-winner is quite apparent in this case. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In the matters of Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam, (2011) 13 SCC 42, Central Administrative Tribunalthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“11.It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.”
There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such an employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment Central Administrative Tribunalon compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, upon taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis due to the immediate death of the employee. (Union of India & Anr. vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294).
Considering the overall totality of the case and in view of the marks allotted to the applicant vis-à-vis the last selected candidate, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in not recommending his case for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.