Neelam Kumari v. 1. Union of India through Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Central Silk
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7933 of 2012 Neelam Kumari ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Central Silk Bord, Government of India Madiwala, Banglore (Karnataka) 3. The Director, Central Tasar Research & Training, Institute, Central Silk Board, Govt. of India, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Director,Regional Tasar Research Institute Dumka ... Respondents …. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, C.G.C. : M/s A.K. Sahini, Ajit Kumar, Advocates 02/25.11.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for her appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner died on 08.05.2007 and at that time the petitioner was only about 15 years of old. Her date of birth is 30.08.1992. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under : 14. “ That in reply to para-9 of writ petition, it is stated that after death of the official on 08.05.2007, the wife of Late Aghori Rajbansi was granted higher rate of family pension of Rs. 8255/- per month + admissible relief w.e.f. 09.05.2007. Death Gratuity of Rs. 4,20,024/- Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme amount of Rs. 43,375/-, Leave Encashment of Rs. 1,45,842/- and Rs. 68,923/- towards full and final settlement of Central Provident Fund
Legal Reasoning
Account. This clearly shows that the contention raised in this para that the petitioner and her mother are living in dire financial condition is not true and cannot be accepted. 15. That in reply to para-10 of writ petition, it is stated that- (i) It is true that Smt. Chakravarti Devi, wife of late Aghori Rajbansi submitted application dated 17.07.2007 seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter viz. Ms. 2 Neelam Kumari, who is the petitioner in the present case and whose date of birth is 30.08.1992. At the time of submission of application for compassionate appointment, Ms. Neelam Kumari was around 15 years. As per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme notified by the Department of personnel and Training vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09/10/1998, the lower age limit should, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of age. Further as per the scheme, compassionate appointment can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C” or 'D' post in a year. (ii) In the meantime, at the Meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 5th December 2007, the Committee examined 27 application received for compassionate appointment from the dependents of the deceased officials including that of Smt. Chakravarti Devi. The Committee observed that there were 25 direct recruitment vacancies available in Group-C and D and only 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies can be earmarked for compassionate appointment. Taking into account the number of direct recruitment vacancies, only one vacancy was available for compassionate appointment during the year 2007- 08. The criteria followed for empanelling the candidates for compassionate appointments includes quantum of family pension drawn by the spouse, age of the dependent children, whether anyone is employed in the family, assets available, outstanding liabilities, length of service left at the time of death of the deceased employee, total number of dependants etc. Accordingly, the cases of all the 27 candidates were examined based on the above criteria and their names were arranged in the order of priority based on their economic condition. Out of the 27 candidates, the committee recommended a panel of 8 candidates in the order 3 of priority based on their economic condition. Accordingly, the first person in the List was offered the compassionate appointment against the one vacancy which was earmarked for compassionate appointment. The Committee also observed that Ms. Neelam Kumari, Daughter of Smt Chakravarti Devi, whose name was placed at Sl. No. 25 in the List, was minor and therefore, rejected the request of Smt. Chakravarti Devi seeking compassionate appointment to her minor daughter. (iii) It is relevant to mention here that it is not only the request of Smt. Chakravarti Devi seeking compassionate appointment for her minor daughter was rejected, but also other similar cases where the spouse had requested for compassionate appointment for their minor children were also rejected earlier along with Smt. Chakravati Devi. (iv) Subsequently, at the Meeting of the Compassionate Appointments Committee held on 17th June 2008, the Committee reviewed the Panel of candidates recommended by the Committee at its Meeting held on 5th December 2007 and observed that out of 8 candidates kept in the Panel, compassionate appointment was offered to the first candidate. It was observed by the Committee that a few more vacancies arose in Group-C and D during the year 2007-08 and the total vacancies which arose in these cadres during 2007-08 worked out to 40 and therefore, the actual number of vacancies available for compassionate appointment during 2007-08 was 2 instead of one utilized. Accordingly, as per the recommendations of the Committee, the person at Sl. No. 2 in the Panel was offered the compassionate appointment.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4 though the petitioner was minor at the time when her father died, on attaining majority, the petitioner has approached the respondents for grant of appointment on compassionate ground which has been wrongly denied to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the plea taken in the counter-affidavit that sufficient monetary compensation was granted to the mother of the petitioner cannot be a ground for denying the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is intended at extending help to the family in distress to overcome immediate hardship of the family. In the present case at the time when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner was a minor aged about 15 years only and therefore, the time limit prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground could not have been relaxed in the case of the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that sufficient monetary compensation has been paid to the family of the petitioner. As per the scheme of the Government only 5 % of the total seat in a year is reserved for compassionate appointment and only one post was available in the year when the claim of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment. Moreover, the petitioner was aged about 15 years and 5 therefore, she could not have been granted appointment on compassionate ground. 8. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others” reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, 2.“....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable land valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution . No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and 6 the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 9.
Decision
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)