Inderjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 1.9.2009 (P-10), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in OA No. 137/CH/2009. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against 5% quota in Police Department on compassionate ground.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Shri Jaswant Singh was working as Sub-Inspector in Chandigarh Police and died C.W.P. No. 16966 of 2009 2 in harness on 26.8.2006. On 26.9.2006, the mother of the petitioner made an application to the Inspector General of Police-respondent No. 3 for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner (P-1). The case of the petitioner was recommended for Class III post and if not possible then Class IV post, by the Common Committee on Compassionate Appointments to the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No. 3, as is evident from communication dated 20.8.2007 (P-3). On 2.4.2008, the Regional Employment Officer-respondent No. 4 informed the IGP- respondent No. 3 that the name of the petitioner has been registered at Sr. No. 628 and that his name along with others would be considered as per their seniority and eligibility as and when any vacancy becomes available and the fact is intimated to any other department of U.T. Chandigarh under 5% quota reserved for the compassionate appointments (P-4). On

29.12.2008, the IGP-respondent No. 3 again recommended the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 for compassionate appointment on priority basis (P-5).

3. On 5.12.2008, an advertisement regarding recruitment of 150 Constables in the Chandigarh Police appeared in the daily newspaper, namely, Chandigarh Bhaskar (P-6). It is claimed that the petitioner approached the respondents for consideration of his name for appointment on compassionate grounds against the advertised posts. Since the petitioner was over-age, therefore, he made a representation for age relaxation (P-7). It has also been asserted by the petitioner that on 12.1.2008 he also represented to the authorities for appointing him against the available vacancies of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (P-8). Eventually, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. C.W.P. No. 16966 of 2009 3 137/CH/2009. The Tribunal has dismissed the aforementioned OA by observing as under:- “6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that his claim should be considered in respect of direct recruitment vacancies which have been advertised by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents stated the brothers of the applicant are settled abroad and the family pension in his case is Rs. 8000/- per month and about Rs. 8 lacs were paid to the family as pensionary benefits etc. Under the circumstances, he stated that there is no extra-ordinary reasons which could justify out of turn appointment for the applicant. He also stated that the applicant cannot be considered in the direct recruitment process as he is ineligible for the same because of his age both for the post of Constable as well as for the post of ASI. The learned counsel for the applicant could not adduce any evidence in support of his claim nor could be informed this court of any extra-ordinary circumstances regarding the indigent condition of the applicant which justify preferential treatment towards him.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the applicant. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is C.W.P. No. 16966 of 2009 4 well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of entry into public service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487. Reliance can also be placed on a recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481.

5. In the present case the Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding of fact that the family of the petitioner is getting family pension of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Besides this a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was also paid to the family as pensionary benefits. Even the brother of the petitioner is working abroad and cannot be said to be dependent on the family. Under these circumstances it cannot be accepted that the crisis has continued to haunt the survivor and that the situation created by the death of father of the petitioner is still prevailing. Moreover, the petitioner is over 36 years old whereas the maximum age of entry into service for the post of Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector is 26 years. There is no ground to issue direction to the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner on priority basis. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE C.W.P. No. 16966 of 2009 5 January 20, 2010 Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE