Smt. Kamla alias Guddi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Order

24.09.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the petitioners. BY THE COURT: ( PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.)

1. Defects pointed out by the registry are waived. The writ petition is heard on merits.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated

17.04.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench ('the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application (OA) preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Garrison Engineer, Air Force Station, Jodhpur intimating the rejection of application preferred by the petitioner no.1 herein for appointment of her son Gaje Singh, petitioner no.2 herein, on compassionate ground, stands dismissed. 2

3. The petitioner's husband, Vijay Singh, who was employed as a Driver Engine Static in ACE/ML, died while in service on 6.3.11 leaving behind the petitioners herein and two daughters. The petitioner no.1 moved an application that her only son who was otherwise unemployed be given appointment on compassionate ground. The appointment was declined vide order dated 15.4.11 issued of Garrison Engineer, Air Force,Jodhpur on the ground that after the death of husband of the petitioner no.1, as per record, no family member except the petitioner no.1 is dependent on him. It was observed that all the death terminal benefits are being granted to the petitioner no.1 and since no other dependent is left behind the deceased employee, the case for employment to married/major son is not found feasible for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Aggrieved by the denial of appointment, the petitioners preferred OA before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

5. After due consideration, the Tribunal has arrived at the finding that after the death of deceased employee, there is no family member dependent on him except petitioner no.1, who is also in receipt of all terminal benefits. The Tribunal observed that the incident of death of the deceased employee does not transform into overall eligibility unless criterion laid down for selection is satisfied. It was further observed that no Rule or statutory provision is violated 3 so as to warrant interference by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in declining to interfere with the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the appointment to married/major son is not found feasible for recommendation.

Learned counsel submitted that the appointment is always accorded to major sons/daughters and not to minors and therefore, the rejection of the application by the respondents was ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that even if the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, such claim cannot be rejected in arbitrary manner ignoring the object underlying the scheme framed i.e. to extend benefits to the family of the government servant, dying while in service. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by the respondent no. 3 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner no.1 seeking appointment of the petitioner no.2 on compassionate ground deserves to be set aside.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. It is to be noticed that the death of the government employee by itself does not transform into eligibility to claim appointment on 4 compassionate ground. As per the Scheme framed, a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness acquires the eligibility for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, if the following twin conditions are satisfied: (1)The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (2) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules.

9. Indisputably, in the instant case, the petitioner no.1, dependent of deceased Government servant had claimed appointment on compassionate ground not for herself but for her married/major son, petitioner no.2 herein. It has come on record that the petitioner no.1 has received all the terminal benefits which includes an amount of Rs.6,24,677/- towards (DCRG ) Gratuity. That apart, PPO for family pension has also been released wherein monthly family pension payable to the petitioner no.1 was fixed at Rs.7,925/-. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased Government servant is indigent and deserves immediate assistance of relief from financial destitution. It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner no.2 on compassionate ground has been rejected solely not on the ground of his being married/major rather than being not dependent on his deceased father. That apart,the Scheme framed does not provide for offer of appointment on compassionate ground to dependent of each 5 and every deceased employee and no case is considered individually or Unit/Office wise but all the cases received from various Units/Offices are considered by the Board of Officers constituted at Headquarters to find out the most deserving cases in acute financial distress/more indigent in comparison to other similar cases.

10. Undoubtedly, the Scheme regulating the appointment on compassionate ground is framed by the Government so as to extend immediate succor to be bereaved family of the deceased employee who has died in harness. The appointment on compassionate ground, an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment Rules governing the public employment, to meet the particular contingency, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

11. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, [1996(5) SCC,308], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premises that he was dependent on 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 certain crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service.”

12. In the matter of “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana”, [1994(4) SCC 138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “The 6 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 members of the family.” The Hon'ble Court further observed that “the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

13. In considered opinion of this court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner no.1 seeking appointment on compassionate ground for petitioner no.2 cannot be faulted with and therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the OA preferred by the 7 petitioners herein.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition lacks merits, it is hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA), J. (ARUN MISHRA), C.J. Aditya/- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Aditya Joshi, PS