AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Deo Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
The present original application has been filed by the original applicant seeking following relief:
“i.Issue an order or direction to the respondent No 1 to consider to appoint the applicant on a suitable Group C / Class III post in North Central Railways, compatible to his qualification on compassionate grounds in place of his mother who did in harness.
ii.Issue such other and / or further order as deemed fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
iii.Award costs to the applicant.”
A compendium of the facts as narrated in the original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents’ department has not considered his prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his father who was working in the respondents’ department and died in harness. Applicant has contended that at the time of the death of his mother, he was a minor and as and when he turned major, he preferred the representation before the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds but the same has not been considered by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this original application seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on a suitable Group C / Class III post in North Central Railways, compatible to his qualification on compassionate grounds in place of his mother who died in harness.
Respondents, on the other hand, have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority, inquiry was made by the welfare inspector and it was found that the applicant has attained majority and no liability was left by the deceased employee on the applicant to look after. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 04.04.2022 which was communicated to the applicant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant’s mother Late Ms. Meera was working in the respondents’ department as Safai Karamchari and died in harness on 28.08.2018. She was a single woman who was raising the applicant, who was her adopted son. The applicant was adopted by the employee concerned when he was seven years old on 02.11.2010. Further, Ms Meera had been a single woman / single parent to the applicant. When the employee concerned passed away, the applicant was minor. Later, on 03.08.2021, he passed his Xth examination with first division. When he turned 18 years old, on 02.11.2021, he preferred a representation dated 20.11.2021 before the respondents seeking family pension as being the dependent of his deceased mother and also prayed for a suitable post on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel further argued that family pension was granted to the applicant three years late that too with a rider that family pension paid to the applicant will be Rs. 17000 up to 28.08.2028 and thereafter normal family pension of Rs 10,200/- up to 02.11.2028 or employment or marriage or death whichever is earlier plus dearness relief as admissible from time to time. The applicant passed his intermediate examination on 25.04.2023. Then, on 16.08.2023, he made a representation before the respondents seeking compassionate appointment but for no avail. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to grant appointment to the applicant on suitable post of Group C / Class III on the basis of his educational qualification failing which he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the applicant’s counsel and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that candidature of the applicant was considered and welfare inspector was nominated who submitted the inquiry report after inquiring the matter. It was found that the employee concerned passed away leaving behind only the applicant. Further, the applicant is getting family pension of Rs 17,000/- plus dearness relief and is entitled to get the family pension till 25 years of age, in accordance with extant rules. Also, settlement dues of Rs. 13,32,327/- has been paid to him and it is also found that no other liability was left by the deceased employee upon the applicant to look after. Accordingly, his case was rejected vide order dated 04.04.2022 and the order was communicated to the applicant. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances prayer was made to dismiss the OA.
Rejoinder has been filed by applicant reiterating the facts as have been narrated in the OA. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No 3528 of 2022 titled Ganesh Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
I have considered the rival contentions and also carefully perused the records of the case.
In this matter, as is evident from the records, the applicant’s mother died on 28.08.2018 leaving behind his son (the applicant) who was minor at that time. When the applicant turned major, he preferred representation seeking compassionate appointment. The applicant is also being paid family pension of Rs. 17,000/- plus dearness relief and is entitled to get the family pension till 25 years of age, in accordance with extant rules. Also, settlement dues of Rs. 13,32,327/- has been paid to him. The applicant is of the contention that his request has not been considered by the department. However, a perusal of the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the respondents (annexed as Annexure CR-1 with the Counter Affidavit) reveals that the case of the applicant was considered and rejected. The said order was also communicated to the applicant. However, the applicant has not challenged / impugned the aforesaid order in the OA.
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 must 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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”.
In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant is being paid a family pension of Rs. 17,000/- plus dearness relief and is entitled to get the family pension till 25 years of age, in accordance with extant rules. Also, settlement dues of Rs. 13,32,327/- has been paid to him. Furthermore, the applicant was the sole person left behind by the employee concerned during her death and no liability was left by the deceased employee to be looked after by the applicant. Thus, if the facts and circumstances of the instant case are compared with the aforesaid quoted judicial pronouncement, no relief is admissible to the applicant. Also, the case law of Ganesh Shankar Shukla (supra) case as relied upon by the applicant’s counsel does not confer any relief to the instant case. In that case, the Apex Court had directed the respondents therein to not reject the case of the applicant therein on a technical ground of delay and laches. However, in the instant case of the applicant, no such controversy is operating, the case of the applicant was duly considered by the respondents and it has been rejected on merits. Thus, strictly in light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) case, I am of the considered opinion that since no relief as prayed for is admissible to the applicant, the instant original application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits.
All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.