Monoranjan Sardar v. Food Corporation of India

#15. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

#16. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that FCI is placing heavy reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Public Interest Litigation. 5

#17. The Public Interest Litigation in which the judgment was delivered was in respect of a news item published in the daily newspaper reporting that in the depots run by the Food Corporation of India, some of the departmental loaders were earning as much as Rs. 4,00,000/- per month.

#18. The news item reflected abuse of government funds, inefficiency and reluctance on the part of the authorities to act sternly against various persons indulged in siphoning of government funds.

#19. It was reiterated that some of the loaders clandestinely engaged services of other persons by paying a paltry amount under the incentive scheme when they were getting huge amount of money from the Food Corporation of India.

#20. It was on this report that the Court passed a slew of directions. The Public Interest Litigation was not relating to compassionate appointment at all.

#21. The scheme for compassionate appointment was prevailing on the day of death of the father of the petitioner. The same was also very much available when the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made.

#22. The application was made with promptitude and it is only because the Food Corporation of India kept the same pending for a considerable period of time that the petitioner was compelled to knock the doors of justice by filing the instant writ petition. 6

#23. The submission of the respondent authority that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay cannot be accepted as there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the authority who was unable to maintain and manage its internal affairs. When the report of misuse of government funds came to light, then directions were passed in the Public Interest Litigation.

#24. There is no order(s) from any competent forum not to process the application(s) made seeking appointment on compassionate ground. For making its own house in order, there is absolutely no requirement of the authority not to process the application(s) seeking appointment on compassionate ground by the heirs of the deceased who may be in acute financial crisis on the death of the sole bread winner.

#25. Such application(s) ought to have been considered in terms of the prevailing scheme(s). It is not necessary that the appointment under the died-in-harness category has to be given only in respect of one department or in a particular cadre. The applicant cannot choose the cadre where appointment can be given on compassionate ground. The same is the discretion of the employer.

#26. The cadre where illegal activities were noticed by the authority may have been declared to be a dying cadre and appointment may not be given in the said cadre; but the same does not imply that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered at all. 7

#27. As the scheme in question is still prevailing, the authority ought to consider the application(s) made by the heirs of the deceased for being appointed in any other cadre or post.

#28. Delaying consideration of the application on the ground that appointment on compassionate ground has been kept on hold and, thereafter, praying for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay cannot be appreciated. The authority cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.

#29. The authority ought to take a decision whether to allow or to reject the application(s) relying on the prevailing scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Such application cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period of time. Till a decision is taken and communicated to the applicant, it is not possible for the applicant to take the next course of action.

#30. Learned advocate for the respondents sought to rely upon decisions on the propositions that (i) appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and (ii) delay in making application for consideration of application seeking compassionate appointment.

#31. As both the aforesaid propositions are so very well settled, the Court did not feel the requirement of referring to any particular judgment in this regard.

#32. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by directing the General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of India 8 being the respondent no. 4 herein to take steps to process the application seeking compassionate appointment of the petitioner and forward the same to the competent authority for taking a decision in the matter in accordance with the scheme which was prevailing on the day the father of the petitioner expired and the day on which the application seeking compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner.

#33. A decision shall be taken in this regard at the earliest but positively within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of this order.

#34. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter. If the prayer of the petitioner is accepted, then necessary consequential steps shall be taken by the authority without any further delay.

#35. The writ petition and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of.

#36. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

#37. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)