AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
“(i)The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 with further direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment and provide him suitable appointment with consequential benefits.
(ii)The Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court finds deem fit and proper.
(iii)Cost of application, payable in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father died on 02.12.2005 while working as Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master. His younger brother applied for compassionate appointment but died on 18.10.2007. Thereafter, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 08.04.2010. As the applicant had passed Class 8, he was directed to pass the High School Examination within two years. He passed the High School Examination in 2014 and his result was declared as “PASSED”. His case was found genuine by the concerned authority and was recommended for further consideration on 17.07.2014. However, his claim was later rejected on the ground that he was a married son. The applicant challenged the said stand,stating that no such restriction existed when he had applied for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the said restriction was withdrawn and the applicant was again asked to submit the required documents. His case was thereafter forwarded to the Postmaster General, Bareilly on 11.11.2020. Finally, by order dated 16.06.2022, his claim was rejected on the ground that he had Central Administrative Tribunalnot secured passing marks in English, though the High School Board had declared him “PASSED”. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that after the death of Shri Ved Bhushan Sharma, his younger son Shri Bal Krishna applied for compassionate engagement. However, he died on 18.10.2007. Thereafter, the applicant, elder son of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate engagement. At that time, he had passed only Class 8. The applicant was informed to apply after passing High School, as no relaxation in the prescribed educational qualification was permissible. He subsequently submitted a High School certificate, which was found to be fake on verification. Later, the applicant again submitted a High School marksheet claiming to have passed the examination. His case was initially not considered as he was a married son. Subsequently, the rules were amended and a married son was made eligible for consideration. Accordingly, in 2020, the applicant was asked to submit the required documents. On examination of his High School marksheet, it was found that he had secured only 30 marks in English, including 1 mark in theory and 29 marks in practical and was therefore shown as failed in English. Since passing English and Mathematics in High School was a mandatory educational qualification for compassionate engagement, the applicant was found ineligible. Accordingly, by order dated 16.06.2022, his claim for compassionate engagement was rejected. The respondents submit that the said order was passed in accordance with the applicable departmental rules and guidelines. Therefore, the present Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has reiterated the same facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit.
I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant’s father died while in service and, therefore, the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was required to be considered in accordance with the rules applicable to such cases. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment and, on being directed to obtain the required educational qualification, he passed the High School Examination in 2014. The result of the applicant was declared as “PASSED” by the concerned Board. It was further submitted that the applicant’s case was found genuine by the concerned authority and was recommended for further consideration. His case was thereafter rejected mainly on the ground that he was a married son. However, the said restriction was subsequently withdrawn and the applicant became eligible for consideration. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the respondents have wrongly treated the applicant as failed in English on the basis of the marks shown in the marksheet, although the competent High School Board had declared him “PASSED”. According to the applicant, once the Board had declared him successful, the respondents could not treat him as failed in the High School Examination. It was also submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the applicant’s case on the basis of his overall result and the certificate issued by the competent Board instead of rejecting his claim only on the basis of the marks shown against English. Thus, he submitted that the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 is not proper and is liable to be quashed. The respondents may be directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant did not possess the required educational qualification for compassionate appointment. At the time of his initial application, he had passed only Class 8 and was therefore directed to obtain the prescribed Central Administrative TribunalHigh School qualification. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant had earlier submitted a High School certificate which, on verification, was found to be fake. Thereafter, he submitted another marksheet. On examination of the said marksheet, it was found that the applicant had secured only 30 marks in English, including 1 mark in theory and 29 marks in practical and was shown as failed in English. It was submitted that passing English and Mathematics in High School was a mandatory educational qualification for compassionate engagement in the Department of Posts. Therefore, merely because the Board had shown the overall result as “PASSED”, the applicant could not be treated as having passed the required subjects. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the applicant’s case was considered in accordance with the rules applicable from time to time. The issue regarding his being a married son was subsequently removed by amendment of the rules and thereafter his case was again considered. Thus, there was no discrimination or illegality on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents next argued that the competent authority examined the applicant’s marksheet and found that he did not fulfill the prescribed educational qualification. Therefore, the rejection order dated 16.06.2022 was passed strictly in accordance with the departmental rules and instructions and does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant’s father died as long back as on 02.12.2005. Thus, more than 20 years have already passed since the death of the deceased employee. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee in a case where the family is left in financial difficulty due to the sudden death of the employee. It was submitted that in the present case, the family of the deceased employee has survived for such a long period after his death. Therefore, the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment, namely, to provide immediate relief from the financial crisis caused by the death of the employee, no longer survives. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after such a long period. The long delay Central Administrative Tribunalitself shows that the family has been able to survive without compassionate appointment. Therefore, at this stage, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted merely on the ground that the applicant is a legal heir of the deceased employee. Apart from, the applicant not possessing the prescribed educational qualification, the claim is also liable to be rejected on the ground of enormous delay and the lapse of more than two decades from the date of death of the deceased employee. Thus, the Original Application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In reply to above, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in deciding the applicant’s case cannot be attributed to him, as he had been continuously pursuing his claim before the respondents. His case was found genuine and was recommended for further consideration. It was further submitted that the applicant was initially denied consideration on the ground that he was a married son, but the said restriction was subsequently removed. Thereafter, the respondents themselves called upon him to submit the required documents in 2020 and kept his case under consideration. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the respondents cannot take advantage of the delay caused in processing the applicant’s case. The applicant had not abandoned his claim and had been pursuing it from time to time. Hence, the claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of lapse of time. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 be quashed and the applicant’s claim be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable rules.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
It is admitted fact that applicant has no vested right to be appointed on compassionate ground. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and itdepends upon the destitute condition of the family of thedeceased employee. In the instant case, the employee died in the year 2005 and we are in the year 2026 and near more than 20 years have elapsed, the applicant as well as the family of the deceased employee are maintaining themselves, thus, it shall be presumed that penurious condition of the family has come to an end.
As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is 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 has to be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.
It is also settled preposition 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 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non-grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. DebabrataTiwari and Ors. Etc. etc. in Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022 decided on 3.3.2023 in paras 7.1 and 7.2 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 SushmaGosain 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 MumtazYunusMulani 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 22 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”.
The contention of the applicant that the delay was caused by the respondents cannot improve his case. Even if the applicant had been pursuing his claim from time to time, the fact remains that more than two decades have passed since the death of the deceased employee. Compassionate appointment is intended to meet the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner and not to provide employment after a long lapse of time.
There is another important ground for rejection of the claim. As per the applicable departmental instructions, passing High School with passing marks in English and Mathematics was the prescribed educational qualification for compassionate engagement. From the marksheet produced by the applicant, it is clear that he secured only 30 marks in English, including 1 mark in theory and 29 marks in practical, and the subject was shown as failed. Thus, the applicant did not possess the prescribed educational qualification.
The mere fact that the High School Board declared the applicant’s overall result as “PASSED” cannot by itself confer eligibility for compassionate engagement when the departmental rules specifically require passing marks in English and Mathematics. The applicant was required to satisfy the prescribed subject-wise qualification also. Therefore, the respondents were justified in examining his marksheet and finding that he did not fulfill the required educational qualification. It is pertinent to note that applicant had submitted High School marksheet at first which was found fake and forged, this fact also shows that applicant tried to obtain compassionate appointment on fake certificate.
In view of the above discussion, the applicant has failed to establish any right to compassionate appointment. His claim is also liable to fail on account of the long lapse of more than 20 years from the date of death of his father and also on account of his failure to fulfill the prescribed educational qualification of passing English and Mathematics at High School examination.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 does not call for any interference. The Original Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.