✦ High Court of India · 26 Mar 2006

Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee, Ms. Manish and Ms. Mansi, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Case Details High Court of India · 26 Mar 2006

Court

High Court of India

Decided

26 Mar 2006

Bench

C HARI SHANKAR

Length

4,583 words

Cited in this judgment

Ms. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent in response to the aforesaid letter, but that there was no further communication. As against this, Mr. Neeraj, learned SPC, submits that the petitioner had been called four times and did not turn up thrice and failed on one occasion.

7. In the interregnum, the aforesaid 13 posts were reverted back to the SSF.

8. Following this, the Ministry of Home Affairs3 wrote to the petitioner on 15 May 2017 as under: “ΝΟ. Α-12012/01/2011-SSO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NDCC-II Building, Jain Singh Road, Signature Not Verified 3 “MHA”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 New Delhi, dated the 15th May, 2017 To As per list attached. Subject: Appointment on compassionate posts in Secretarial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs-regarding. Sir/Madam, I am directed to say that your name has been recommended the Screening for appointment on compassionate basis by Committee in November, 2013 and accordingly your name was forwarded to CISF for compassionate quota vacancies accruing against SSF posts transferred to that organization between 2001 to 2011. In view of the inability of CISF to appoint any of the recommended candidates, it is now being considered to appoint the recommended candidates on compassionate basis against existing compassionate quota vacancies in SSF. In order to enable this for compassionate Ministry appointment in SSF you are requested to submit the current and updated information regarding the financial status as per the enclosed proforma. to consider your application Yours faithfully, (S. Samanta) Under Secretary to the Govt of India” (Emphasis supplied)

9. As directed by the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted the documents relating to his financial status.

10. Thereafter, a Screening Committee considered the case of all the aspirants who had applied for compassionate appointment on 20 July 2017. Paras 3 and 4 of the minutes of the screening committee reads thus: “3. The Committee observed, that the appointment of the 13 dependents of the SSF personnel who died while in service between 2001 and 2011, who were recommended by the Screening Committee in September, 2012, has already been quite delayed. In Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 view of the opinion given by DOPT and Department of Legal Affairs in the matter, these candidates may be considered for the existing appointment on compassionate basis against compassionate quota vacancies of Constables in SSF subject to their being otherwise eligible for such appointment as on date. The committee again considered the current financial and family details in respect of these 13 recommended candidate and observed as follows: That 2 of the candidates a) compassionate appointment have since expired. (Ms. Mukesh Kumari and Shri Zaneet Kumar). Now, Shri Amit Kumar, brother of Shri Zaneet Kumar has applied for compassionate appointment in place of Shri Zaneet Kumar. recommended b) That one of the candidates recommended for compassionate appointment is involved in criminal case (Shri Naveen Kumar). c) That one of the candidates recommended for compassionate appointment is already married (Ms. Rita Parcha). Considering the above factual position, the Screening 4. Committee recommended that the following persons, out of the 13 persons, recommended for compassionate appointment by the earlier Screening Committee in 2012, may be appointed on compassionate appointment against the existing compassionate quota vacancies in SSF in the grade of Constable: Shri Satish Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Constable S N

1. Tripathi Shri Sachin Kumar S/o Late Constable Bhagwan

2. Singh

3. Shri Shiv Anand S/o Late Constable Surender Shri Dhanesh Kumar S/o Late H/C Nathu Lal

4. Nawaria

6. Shri Anil Kumar S/o Late Constable Suresh Kumar Smt. Rita Parcha D/o Late Constable Laxman Das Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Constable Ashok

7. Kumar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022

8. Ms. Pinku D/o Late Constable Maharaj Singh

9. Shri Amit Kumar S/o Late Constable Surjeet Singh Shri Deepak Sharma S/o Late Constable Subhash

10. Chand Sharma Shri Ashish Kumar S/o Late Constable Khanchid

11. Singh” (Emphasis supplied)

11. Thus, after the doors of compassionate appointment had practically been thrown open to the petitioner, there was a complete hiatus after the aforesaid minutes of the Screening Committee. Something, presumably, happened in the interregnum as, on 3 September 2019, the following communication came to be addressed to the petitioner by the MHA: “No.I.25016/29/2018-SSO-I Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya *** NDCC-II, New Delhi, Dt. 03 Sept 2019 To Shri Shivanand, S/o Late Shri Surender Kumar, R/o H.No. 875, Village Bakhtawar Pur Delhi-110036. SUB: Request for appointment on compassionate ground – reg. Sir, With reference to your letter dated 01.08.2019 addressed to Hon’ble Home Secretary, it is intimated that the name of Shri Shivanand S/o Late Shri Surender Kumar was considered alongwith other candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. However, name of Shri Shivanand was not approved for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 compassionate appointment in terms of guidelines issued by their Ο.Μ. Νο. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated DoP&T vide 16.01.2013. Yours faithfully, (S. Samanta) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Tel. No. 2309 8052”

12. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court, praying that the respondent be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

13. We have heard Ms. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj, learned SPC for the respondents at length. Apart from pointing out the aforesaid facts, Ms. Chatterjee has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain v State of Bihar4, The Manager, AUP School v The State of Kerala5 and Malaya Nanda Sethy v State of Orissa6.

14. Ms. Chatterjee particularly emphasises the fact that, in Syed Khadim Hussain, the Supreme Court allowed a plea of compassionate appointment by the petitioner, who was only 13 years of age at the time when he had applied on the ground that, by the time his case was taken up for consideration, he had crossed the age of 18 and could therefore be considered for appointment. 4 (2006) 9 SCC 195 5 Judgment dated 17 January 2022 in Civil Appeal 359/2022 6 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022

15. Mr. Neeraj, who appears on behalf of the respondent, submits, per contra, that the petitioner’s case could not have been considered for compassionate appointment as he was only 17 ‰ of age at the time of this application. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board v Nirmala Devi7. Analysis

16. Having considered the submissions of both sides, we deem it appropriate, at the outset, to reproduce paras 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy, which contain the following exordium: several cases, applications “17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate 18. grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the Signature Not Verified 7 (2022) 10 SCC 696 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” (Emphasis supplied) The present case, we are constrained to observe, presents a textbook example of the malaise noticed by the Supreme Court in para 17 of Malaya Nanda Sethy.

17. This is a case in which, for reasons which may at best be described as recondite, the petitioner has been treated with abject indifference.

18. The petitioner’s mother submitted compassionate appointment just over six months after the death of the the application petitioner’s father. It was therefore submitted proximate to the death of the petitioner’s father and could not be treated as belated.

19. The respondents sat on the application for six years before communicating with the petitioner on 28 December 2012, stating that he was one of the candidates who had been recommended for appointment on compassionate basis against the 13 vacancies available in the SSF for the said purpose which was later transferred to the CISF.

20. The further communication dated 30 August 2013 in fact called the petitioner to appear before the respondents for being selected for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 appointment on compassionate grounds.

21. The petitioner appeared. He was never informed of any adverse outcome of his consideration.

22. Rather, on 15 May 2017, the MHA specifically wrote to the petitioner stating that, as the CISF had been unable to appoint the 13 candidates, it was being considered to appoint them on compassionate basis against the existing compassionate quota vacancies. The petitioner was therefore directed to submit the details of his financials. He did so. The screening committee thereafter met on 20 July 2017 and specifically the petitioner for compassionate appointment and recommended his case.

23. A matter of considerable significance, which emerges from para 3 of the recommendations of the Screening Committee, extracted supra, is that, keeping in mind the delay that had occurred in the interregnum, the screening committee decided consciously to consider the eligibility of the candidate as on date. As such, as the Screening Committee was itself considering the eligibility of the candidates for compassionate appointment as on the date of consideration, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration, as he was only 17 ‰ years of age at the time of the submission of the original application for compassionate appointment by his mother. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022

24. After this, we see no justifiable reason whatsoever for the respondent to have rejected the petitioner’s case by the impugned order dated 3 September 2019. The order is completely unreasoned and merely makes reference to the guidelines contained in the DOPT OM dated 16 January 2013. However, the submissions of Mr. Neeraj indicate that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s case was the fact that he was six months short of the appropriate age at the time when his mother had initially applied for compassionate appointment.

25. That, in our view, cannot constitute a justifiable reason to reject the petitioner’s case, for myriad reasons.

26. In the first place, as we have already noted, the Screening Committee in para 3 of its minutes dated 20 July 2017 had itself taken a decision to consider the eligibility of the candidates as on that date. In other words, keeping in mind the delay that had been occasioned at the end of the respondents themselves, as a result of which the candidates had been subjected to unnecessary prejudice, the Screening Committee had taken an expansive and magnanimous view and had decided to consider eligibility as on 20 July 2017. There is no dispute about the fact that, as on date, the petitioner was eligible and was much over 18 years of age.

27. Though, in view of the decision of the Screening Committee, the age of the petitioner at the time of original application ceases to be of relevance, nonetheless, we may note that in Syed Khadim Hussain, the Supreme Court specifically held that, even if at the time of Signature Not Verified application, the petitioner was only 13 years of age, he could have Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 been considered for compassionate appointment as he had crossed the age of 18 by the time his application was taken up. We may reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the said decision to advantage as under: “4. We have heard the appellant’s counsel and counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the appellant points out that after the death of the government servant his wife submitted an application and it was rejected without giving any reasons and the counsel for the State submits that the same must have been rejected as it was not in the prescribed format. If the applicant had not submitted the application in the prescribed format the State authorities should have asked the applicant to submit the application in the prescribed format giving out the details of the procedure. In the matters of compassionate appointments the authorities should extend the service in an effective manner so that the eligible candidate may avail the opportunity. Though the orders of rejection of the application of the appellant’s mother was not challenged the appellant pursued the matter and submitted the application later. The contention of the counsel for the State is that the application filed after 5 years after the date of death of the government employee will not be considered and he further submitted that the application filed on 7-9-1995 was rightly rejected by authorities.

5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years’ old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application.” (Emphasis supplied)

28. In this view of the matter, the reliance by the respondent on the decision in Nirmala Devi ceases to be of much relevance. Even otherwise, the controversy before the Supreme Court in Nirmala Devi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.08.2025 17:46:23 W.P.(C) 4786/2022 was with respect to a candidate who did not possess the requisite academic qualifications on the date when the application for compassionate appointment was made and had achieved qualifications only at a later date. The reference to age in the said decision is merely by way of an aside and was not the actual issue which was before the Supreme Court.

29. We may also reproduce, in this context, the following passages from the decisions in Manager, AUP School and Malaya Nanda Sethy on which Ms. Chatterjee placed reliance: From Manager, AUP School “12. However, there is an aspect of the case which would warrant close scrutiny. The Additional Director, in his order dated 29 June 2017, directed that the sixth respondent should be appointed in the first vacancy which arose after 12 March 2014. Now, as the narration of facts indicates, the sixth respondent initially sought appointment as a Peon. Subsequently, after he had passed the engineering degree course and the Teachers’ Training course, he sought appointment for the first time on 12 March 2014 as a Lower Primary School Assistant. Evidently, the application which was submitted on 12 March 2014 cannot form the basis of compassionate appointment. Such an application, which was submitted nearly nine years after the death of the mother, could not have been entertained. That, however, does not obviate the position that the application which was originally submitted on 14 February 2007 for appointment as a Peon was not entertained without any justifiable reasons. The application was found to be in order and the claim of the sixth respondent for appointment was duly scrutinized and confirmed both by the Sub-District Education Officer as well as by the Additional Director. Hence, having regard to the principles which have been laid down by this Court in Shashi Kumar8 and P Venkatesh9, the claim of the sixth respondent for appointment as a Lower Primary School Assistant would have to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. However, the claim for appointment as a Peon which was duly submitted on 14 Signature Not Verified