Rajesh Kumar v. The Government Of India

Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 condition of the family as laid down in the Government of India instructions for purposes of compassionate appointment. Persons with 55 or more net points only are eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. The points are allotted based on various criteria i.e. the number of wholly dependent family members of the deceased employee including special weightage to handicap, minor members and unmarried daughter, special weightage to the widow if she was seeking appointment herself, balance service of the ex-official, financial aspects of the family based on family pension, terminal benefits, accommodation, presence of earning member in the family, belated request etc. The petitioner challenged the same in OA No. 322 of 2010. The Tribunal has opined that there was no error in the authorities rejecting his claim to be considered for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a Scheduled Caste with no source of livelihood for him and his family. The grant of terminal benefits along with retirement benefits can be no ground to deny compassionate appointment. The weightage system in fact nullifies the welfare policy of the Government for providing compassionate appointment and makes it an uncertainty. Appointment was being sought on a Class-III and IV posts and not a superior post. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 Counsel for the BSNL has supported the impugned order and submitted that it is well considered and reasoned, fully discussing the law with regard to compassionate appointment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the consideration by the Committee has been done in any manner contrary to the weightage system prescribed or that any relevant material has not been taken into consideration. There is no challenge to the weightage policy on its merits and the criteria and guidelines incorporated under it. Compassionate appointment was not a matter of right. Every claimant for compassionate appointment cannot be granted the same and therefore if a reasonable method or system has been adopted selecting the more needy amongst them based on a weightage system with marks to be awarded under different heads, there is no illegality in the same. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The appreciation of the Tribunal for the rights and limits of claims for compassionate appointment and discussion of judicial precedents are well reflected. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right but an exception to the requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution of India that all appointments on a Government post are to be made by open Advertisement and competitive merit selection. Article 16(1) 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 of the Constitution provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for a citizen in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Under Article 16(2), no citizen can be discriminated in any employment or office under the State inter alia on the ground of descent. But the Courts have recognized an exception to the same keeping in mind the destitute and penury that the family may be visited with on account of sudden death of the bread winner. A claim for compassionate appointment shall therefore have to be considered strictly in accordance with the Policy regulating the same and there can be no scope for sympathy or compassion contrary to the same. Keeping in mind the purpose of compassionate appointment it has been restricted to Class-III and IV posts only. It must be kept in mind that a compassionate appointment facilitates easy entry into Government service without any selection process, irrespective of the quality and caliber of the person being appointed and his or her utility to the employer. In a populace country like India, with Government being a major employer, there are innumerable claims for compassionate appointment. If the respondents have introduced a weightage system for identifying the more needy amongst the claimants, we find no fault with the same. There is no challenge to the policy decision or the criterians fixed by the respondents provided under the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 weightage system. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the weightage systemt has not been properly applied to the petitioner and his claim under the same has not been properly considered eschewing relevant materials and information. The contention that the petitioner was not aware of the details of the weightage system till the counter affidavit has been filed does not appeal to us. A person who approaches the Court for grant of relief is required to be vigilant with regard to his claims and is expected to do his homework and collect all necessary information before presenting his claim to the Court. No litigant has a right to file an application in the form of a roving enquiry and leave it to the Court to carry the enquiry further on his behalf. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that he had a right to be considered for compassionate appointment and pursued legal remedies for the same before the Tribunal and this Court, surely he had the acumen being an Intermediate, to appreciate that it was his responsibility to be adequately equipped for the same. The petitioner secured 37 points under the weightage system and failed to meet the eligibility requirement of 55. In our opinion, reliance by the petitioner on C.W.J.C. No. 13825 of 2005 (Ashok Kumar Sah Vs. The Union of India) is mis-placed. It related to a claim of 2002 prior to the introduction of the weightage 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 system on 27.6.2007. The policy prevalent at that time itself provided that if family of the deceased had received death retirement benefits, it could not be denied compassionate appointment on that ground. The reliance on behalf of the petitioner on (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India) is also misplaced. The judgment has been held to be per incuriam in (2012)11 SCC 307 (Union of India v. Shashank Goswami). The Tribunal has noticed that family pension was being paid to the widow of Rs. 7538/- per month and terminal benefits paid were Rs. 5,88,826/-. There was no mention of any major liability except the marriage of one daughter. In (2006)7SCC 350 (Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh), the scheme for compassionate appointment inter alia required the terminal benefits etc given to be taken into consideration alike that provided in the present weightage policy noticed by us hereinabove. The widow was drawing pension of Rs. 5176/- per month. The terminal benefits paid were Rs. 5,47,495/-. It was held at Paragraph-37 as follows:- “37. It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent this case are better authority equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 the application of directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After that even though respondent the Bank ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this law that the Court. It principles compassionate compassionate appointment appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment factors should be financial condition of the family. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the new Scheme.” is settled regarding guiding In (2012)11 SCC 307 (Union of India v. Shashank Goswam), the family pension was Rs. 3100/- per month and the total terminal benefits paid was Rs. 4,40,908/-. It was held at Paragraph- 16 as follows:- “16. In view of the fact that in the instant case the retiral/terminal benefits have been received by the lakhs, exceeding Rs 3 family Respondent 1 is not eligible to be considered for the Group „C‟ post. In view of the appeal is allowed. The succeeds and impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.” the above, We find no reason to interfere with the subjective assessment made by the respondents of the 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.17541 of 2012 (9) dt.05-07-2013 claim for compassionate appointment to substitute our views and opinions upon the same. The writ application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) P. Kumar/-