AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMMON O R D E R
BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM;
The issue involved in all the three Original Applications are the same. Hence, these are disposed of by way of a common order.
Through these Original Applications, the applicants are aggrieved against the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicants vide impugned rejection orders dated 17.11.2022 & 10.10.2022 in O.A. No. 120/2023, order dated 22.11.2022 in O.A. No. 121/2023 & order dated 03.01.2023 in O.A. No. 456/2023 for compassionate appointment after the death of the deceased employee i.e. the father of the applicants.
The facts, stated in Original Application No.202/00120/2023 are being discussed as under :-
The applicant belongs to Other Backward Class category. The father of the applicant was in the employment of Income Tax Department as Daftary. The applicant's father died while in service on 09.05.2006(Annexure A-2). After the death of applicant's father, the applicant submitted an application for considering him for compassionate appointment. The respondents vide letter 20.09.2017 sought certain information for verification of the case. The applicant submitted the required information with his application dated 25.09.2017. At the time of submission of application, the applicant was not matriculate. However, he passed the High School Certificate Examination in 2020 and immediately submitted a copy of the mark sheet with an application dated 04.02.2021, which is annexed as Annexure A-5. However, the respondents vide impugned orders dated 17.11.2022 & 10.10.2022, rejected the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds without assigning any specific reason.
The facts, stated in Original Application No.202/00121/2023 are being discussed as under :-
The applicant belongs to Other Backward Class category. The father of the applicant was in the employment of Income Tax Department as Daftary. The applicant's father died while in service on 07.10.2011 (Annexure A-3). After the death of the applicant's father, the applicant submitted an application for considering him for compassionate appointment. The respondents vide letter 04.10.2018 sought certain information for verification of the case. The applicant submitted the required information and repeatedly represented for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents vide impugned order dated 22.11.2022, rejected the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds without assigning any specific reason.
The facts, stated in Original Application No.202/00456/2023 are being discussed as under :-
The applicant belongs to Mehtar caste, which is the most backward schedule caste category. The father of the applicant was working on a Group ‘D’ post under the employment of Income Tax Department. The applicant's father died while in service on 23.04.2015. (Annexure A-3). After the death of the applicant's father, the mother of the applicant submitted an application for considering him for compassionate appointment and repeatedly represented for consideration of the case of her son for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents vide impugned order dated 03.01.2023, rejected the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds without assigning any specific reason.
The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that in O.A. No. 202/120/2023, the case of the applicant was taken up for consideration in the meeting of the DSC held on 18.07.2007, for appointment against the post of Peon. Since, the applicants did not possess the requisite educational qualification, his case was not considered by the then DSC for compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was again taken up for consideration in the next meeting of the DSC held on 25.02.2009. Since, there was no vacancy in the cadre of Group 'D', no name was recommended by the DSC for compassionate appointment. In the next meeting, the committee took note of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 05.05.2003 issued by the DoP&T, wherein a time limit of three (03) years was fixed for considering a particular case for compassionate appointment. Therefore, in the meeting of the DSC held on 29.03.2012, only those applications of compassionate appointment were considered where the date of death of government servant was on or after 01.03.2008. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was not considered in the DSC meeting held for compassionate appointment. After withdrawal of time limit of three (03) years vide DoP&T O.M. dated 26.07.2012, all the pending cases of compassionate appointment which could not be considered earlier, were again taken up for consideration in 2013.
Further, the case of the applicant in O.A. No. 202/121/2023 was taken up for consideration in the meeting of the DSC held on 29.03.2012. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant, vide letter dated 27.06.2012, again submitted an application along with certain documents. The next meetings of the DSC were held on 18.09.2015, 28.03.2018 and 22.01.2019, wherein a point based criteria was adopted by the committee which was recommended by the CBDT vide letter dated 08.04.2015, for transparent and fair consideration of all the pending applications. In all the meetings, the points awarded to the applicant were less than that of the other eligible applicants. Hence, his case was not considered by the committee for compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was finally taken up for consideration in the meeting of the DSC held on 21.02.2022. The committee observed that, the applicant is Xth class pass. The terminal benefits received by the dependent family members is Rs. 7,44,970/-. The applicant is working on daily wages and is earning approximately Rs. 1,14,000/- per annum.
The case of the applicant in O.A. No. 202/456/2023 was taken up for consideration in the meeting of the DSC held on 21.02.2022. After consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the committee recommended the name of the applicant for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (M.T.S.), subject to grant of relaxation in terms of Earning Member clause by the competent authority (i.e., the Secretary, CBDT, New Delhi). The recommendations of the committee were duly accepted/approved by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, MP&CG, Bhopal, and thereafter his application along with complete details/documents was forwarded to the CBDT, New Delhi on 07.03.2022 for grant of approval for relaxation in the clause of earning member in the family.
Since the applicants did not fulfil the criteria for granting compassionate appointment, hence their cases were rejected vide speaking orders dated 17.11.2022, 22.11.2022 & 03.01.2023 as per rules.
No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant’s counsel to controvert the submissions of the respondents’ counsel.
Heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels in all the three Original Applications and perused the annexures and the documents relied upon in the pleadings by the parties.
As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation. It is also a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, the claimant must prove his indigent condition and must establish that in the event of non-grant of compassionate appointment, he would face financial crisis.
In all three cases, the applications for compassionate appointment have been considered many times by the Departmental Selection Committee. However, the cases have been rejected on indigency index.
In O.A. No. 202/00120/2023, the DSC has observed that the applicant is working and earning approximately Rs. 1,35,600/- annually. After considering all the facts his case was recommended seeking relaxation in the clause of earning member by the competent authority. Similarly in O.A. No. 202/00121/2023 & in O.A. No. 202/00456/2023, the same view has been taken by the DSC in the meeting held on 21.02.2022.
Their cases were forwarded to the CBDT on 07.03.2022 for approval of relaxation in terms of earning member clause by the competent authority.
CBDT, vide letter dated 04.10.2022 informed that the proposal for appointment of the applicants has been examined by the Board and the Board did not consider it a fit case to grant relaxation.
It is to note that CBDT has rejected their cases for grant of relaxation on the earning member clause, keeping in view the present financial status of the concerned families. The respondent No.4 has given a detailed reasoning for not considering the cases of applicants for compassionate appointment vide speaking orders dated 17.11.2022, 22.11.2022 & 03.01.2023 respectively.
In a recent of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors.etc. in Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022 decided on 3.3.2023 in paras 7.1 and 7.2 it has held as under:-
"7.1.It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
i.In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
ii.In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, ("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea 19 being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The 6 application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under:
"41.Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the 7 delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment."
7.2.On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
i.That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii.Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii.Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
iv.That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v.In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source".
Considering the facts and circumstances of each individual case and the law laid down on the subject by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, all the three Original Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.