Urmila Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

This O.A. No. 415/2012 has been filed by the applicant U/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-

The brief facts emerges from the O.A. are that the husband of the applicant No. 1 who was working as Senior Auditor in the office of Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement )1, 20 Sarojini Naidu Marg, U.P. Allahabad, died on 15.9.2012, leaving behind, widow, one daughter and two sons. Applicant No. 1 moved application twice for compassionate appointment on 31.1.2014 and 30.12.2015 for her elder son. Elder son of the applicant No.1 Sachin Kumar was called by the committee and his claim was rejected vide communication dated 23.6.2015 (Annexure No. 3 to the O.A.) and 8.1.2016 (Annexure No. 4 to the O.A). Impugned order dated 8.1.2016 (Annexure No. A-4 to the O.A.) was also issued, by which it was informed that case of Mr. Sachin Kumar, elder son of the applicant has already been considered by the committee and committee rejected his claim, as such reconsideration for compassionate appointment of your elder son is not possible. Elder son of the applicant No.1 Sachin Kumar was also expired on 7.6.2016 and after his death, applicant No.1 again represented on 28.5.2019 for compassionate appointment to her younger son Mr. Saurabh Kumar (applicant no.2). Vide impugned order dated 8.8.2019 (Annexure No. A-1 to the O.A.), it was informed that the claim of elder son of the applicant No.1 has already been rejected vide letter dated 23.6.2015 and therefore the matter cannot be reconsidered for compassionate appointment for younger son of applicant No. 1. Another impugned order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure No. 2 to the O.A.) was sent to the applicant stating that claim of compassionate appointment of younger son of applicant No.1 cannot be considered because the claim of elder son was already rejected while he was alive. All the orders have been challenged by the applicant in the present O.A.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit, stating therein that late Bhim Kumar, Ex-Sr. Accountant died on 15.9.2012 at the age of 50 years 2 months. After the death of late Bhim Kumar, terminal benefits were paid to the family of deceased employee. Applicant No.1 was also allowed provisional family pension of Rs. 12,705/- per month upto 15.9.2022 and thereafter Rs. 7245/- per month + D.A. Case of compassionate appointment of elder son of applicant No. 1 was considered but committee vide letter dated 23.6.2015, rejected the claim of the elder son of the applicant No.1. After the death of elder son, applicant No. 1 has again moved application dated 28.5.2019 for compassionate appointment to her younger son, which was also rejected by the respondents vide order dated 8.8.2019 on the ground that once the claim of elder son of applicant No. 1 has been considered, again claim of younger son cannot be considered.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that claim of the applicant’s elder son was rejected by the respondents by passing a non-speaking and cryptic order. It is also argued that respondents vide letter dated 8.8.2019 has again rejected the claim of younger son of the applicant No. 1 stating that since claim of elder son of applicant No. 1 has already been rejected vide letter dated 23.6.2015, hence the matter cannot be reconsidered for younger son, which is also a non-speaking order.

Learned counsel for the respondents argues that terminal benefits have been paid to the deceased family and widow is also receiving the family pension. Case of elder son has already been considered, hence again case of younger son cannot be considered.

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

From perusal of order dated 23.6.2015, it is evident that case of elder son was rejected by the respondents by a non-speaking order. The respondents have rejected the claim of the elder son of applicant No.1 for compassionate appointment only on the ground that family has received terminal benefits, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. How much marks awarded to the applicant has not been shown in the impugned order. It is the case of the applicant that she is residing in a rented house as such ground taken by the respondents in the impugned order dated 23.6.2015 that “keeping in view the financial position, immovable and movable assets, the case of Shri Sachin Kumar has not been found fit for compassionate appointment” is not tenable in the eyes of law. As per respondents own version, family of the deceased employee has received only 14,62,125/- as terminal benefits (10,00,000/- as DCRG, 4,03,611/- as leave encashment and 58,514/- as CGEIS). Applicant No. 1 is also receiving only Rs. 7245/- per month + DA as family pension.

Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others reported in (2005) 10 SCC, 289, that “Scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefit of service, which they get on the death of employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family has received such benefit.” Receipt of family pension and terminal benefits cannot be the sole ground for denying compassionate appointment, because if such principle is accepted, then no dependent of Central Govt. would get it.

In the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 398, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that :-

In addition to this, it is also noted that today we are living in a age of transparency. At least some particulars/details of those deserving cases ought to have been given, but there is no such details of comparative study was made between the applicant’s case vis-à-vis other applicants. The respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment only on the ground that family has received terminal benefits, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.

In view of the above, O.A. is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.8.2019, 18.10.2019, 23.6.2015 and 8.1.2016 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the younger son of applicant No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and in accordance with relevant provisions/ guidelines. It is also observed that the order must contain the details such as number of vacancies in the year/years in which applicant’s case was considered, names of the candidates who were considered and their relative merit in the selection process. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 04 months from today.

No order as to costs.