Samit Mahto, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Nivaran Chandra Mahto, R/o Village-Hathibinda (Bahradih) v. ……
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5452 of 2021 Samit Mahto, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Nivaran Chandra Mahto, R/o Village-Hathibinda (Bahradih), P.O. Dokasai, P.S. Potka, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Versus …….… Petitioner 1. Union of India the Deputy Director General (Establishment) Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. Sansad Marg, P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001. through 2. The Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi Jharkhand- 834002. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Singhbum Dn. Jamshedpur, P.O. Jamshedpur, P.S. Mango, District East …….Respondents. Singhbhum, Jharkhand 831001 ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
8. There is no dispute that the appointment on compassionate ground is in the teeth of provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. K.R. Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration its various judgment in paragraph 9 held as under: “9. As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445] , it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on 13 constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 : (1994) 27 ATC 174] it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into [6] consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” 9. It is available from the facts that the case of the writ-petitioner was considered for the vacancy of the year 2015-16 and on the basis of consideration of the weightage which is to be given on the basis of the priority to the dependent of one or the other deceased—family in order to assess that who are the most sufferer in comparison to others and in that view of the matter on the basis of the calculation/assessment made by the respondent in which the writ- petitioner has obtained 43/115 whereas the last selected candidate in PA/SA, Postman and MTS cadre is 64/115, 85/115 and 87/115 respectively. The decision, therefore, was taken 12th September, 2016 by the respondent by which the claim of the writ-petitioner has been rejected. The ground of providing the appointment as a matter of right, since, is not permissible and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, since, it is in the teeth of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India as also the appointment is to be based upon the scheme floated by the respondents, therefore, the respondents in view thereof, when has assessed the candidature of the writ- petitioner on the basis of the existing point system, as per the scheme, has found that there are other candidates, who scored more points than the writ-petitioner, and if in such circumstances the case of the writ-petitioner has been rejected, the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error. [7] It appears from the order passed by the learned Tribunal that the Tribunal apart from the issue on merit has also considered the issue of limitation, since, the Tribunal has been approached after lapse of period of one year, which is the maximum period to approach the Tribunal in view of provision of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 10. Considering the aforesaid reason as also taking into consideration the fact that the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act is not to be stretched which is evident from the very stipulation made therein, therefore, this Court is of the view that while dismissing the original application, the learned Tribunal has committed no error. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Ranchi Circuit Bench in O.A. No.051/00167/2019, requires no interference. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
Arguments
: Mr. Kaushlendra Prasad, Advocate : ---------------------------- Per :Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 06/Dated: 8th May, 2023 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No.051/00167/2019 by which the claim of the writ- petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under: The father of the writ-petitioner, namely, Nibaran Chandra Mahto was appointed as Sub-Post Master on 18th May, 1991 and [2] during period of service, the father of the writ-petitioner has died on 14th June, 2012 and before his death, he was working as Sub-Post Master at Rakha Copper Project. Thereafter in the year 2012, the writ-petitioner has made representation before the respondent- authorities for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was rejected. Aggrieved with the said order of the respondent- authorities the writ-petitioner has approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application being OA/051/00167/2019 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 14th March, 2019. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. It appears from the pleading as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner/applicant after death of his father, which has occurred on 14th June, 2012, has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground and his case was considered for the vacancy of the year 2015-16. The claim of the writ-petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12th September, 2016 on the ground that he has obtained less point in comparison to others and, hence, his case was rejected. Aggrieved with the said order, the writ-petitioner has approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench by filing an original application being OA/051/00167/2019. The Tribunal has taken note of the reason assigned in the order dated 12th September, 2016 as also the delay in approaching the Tribunal has dismissed the original application which is under challenge in this writ petition by invoking [3] the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. 4. Mr. Kaushlendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ- petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality in dismissing the original application without taking into consideration the very object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground. The submission has been made that the moment when the application was filed for consideration of the case of the writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground due to demise of his father in harness, it was the bounden duty of the respondents concern to consider and appoint the writ-petitioner on compassionate ground. The learned Tribunal, since, has not considered the very object to provide appointment on compassionate ground has committed illegality, as such the instant writ petition. 5. None represent the respondents. 6. This Court, has heard the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner and on perusal of the materials available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, has found therefrom that due to the death of father in harness, the writ-petitioner has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the writ-petitioner was considered for the vacancy of year 2015-16 in which he was found to have scored 43 point out of 115, whereas last selected candidate in PA/SA, Postman and MTS cadre is 64/115, [4] 85/115 and 87/115 respectively. The respondent-authorities have taken decision on 12th September, 2016 by which the claim of the writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. The writ-petitioner being aggrieved with the said order dated 12th September, 2016 has approached to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Ranchi Circuit Bench by filing an original application being OA/051/00167/2019 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14th March, 2019, therefore, the instant writ petition. 7. The ground which has been agitated in showing the infirmity in the impugned order as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner that the very object of the appointment on compassionate ground has not been considered by rejecting such claim. There is no dispute that the appointment on compassionate ground, decided to be given by floating a scheme by the employer, is for specific purpose to provide appointment on compassionate ground in order to meet out the immediate succor to the dependent of the bereaved family due to the sudden demise of the bread earner. It is the settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided strictly based upon the condition stipulated in the scheme so floated by the employer. The position of law is also well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought as a matter of right, since, [5] it is exception to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India.
Decision
13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit Pandey/-A.F.R.