Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Kumar vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 1179
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7660/2019
Manish Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bheru Lal Sharma, aged about 33
Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Sri Ram Colony, Near Nandwana
Samadhi, Kapasan, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Culture,
Government of India, 502-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Archeological Survey of India,
Ministry of Culture, Government of India, Janpath, New
Delhi.
3. Additional Director General, Archeological Survey of India,
Ministry of Culture, Government of India, Janpath, New
Delhi.
4. Superintendent Archeologists, Archeological Survey of
India, Jaipur Circle, 70/133-140, Patel Marg, Mansarovar,
Jaipur (Raj.).
5. Senior Conservation Assistant, Archeological Survey of
India, Western Sub Circle, Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narpat Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order 01/08/2019
1. This petition is directed against order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Jodhpur Bench, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, assailing the legality of order dated 10.9.13 issued by the Additional Director General, Archeological Survey of India (ASI), (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:55 AM) (2 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] rejecting his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner's father late Shri Bherulal Sharma employed as Monument Attendant in Archeological Survey of India, died while in service on 8.1.96. The Superintendent, ASI vide communication dated 28.11.96, informed the petitioner's mother Smt. Geeta Devi to fill up the prescribed application form for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's mother herself did not apply for the appointment on compassionate ground rather, requested that the appointment may be accorded to her son on attaining the age of majority. After a lapse of about 7 years, on the petitioner attaining the age of majority, her mother submitted an application to the competent authority to accord him appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother made representations to the authority concerned but to no avail.
3. The application preferred was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 31.1.11 without assigning any reason. In these circumstances, assailing the legality of the said order, the petitioner filed original application being No.66/12 before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 7.5.13 and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules, within a period of three months by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal as aforesaid, the application preferred by the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.9.13. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred yet another (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:55 AM) (3 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] original application before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the family of the deceased was able to survive and provide education to the petitioner, which is adequate proof to show that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in rejecting the application on account of long lapse of time. It is submitted that the petitioner is still unemployed and has no source of income whatsoever. Drawing the attention of the court to the application submitted in the first instance by the mother of the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only 11 years of age and thus, the petitioner's mother had requested to keep the application preferred seeking appointment pending consideration till the petitioner attains the age of majority. In this view of the matter, the application preferred cannot be considered to be belated. Merely because, the respondents did not consider the application preferred by the petitioner with utmost expedition after the petitioner attaining the age of majority, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. Indisputably, the petitioner's mother, who was entitled to claim employment being dependent of her deceased husband, did not seek appointment for herself on compassionate ground. The petitioner, who was 11 years of age at the time of death of his (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:56 AM) (4 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] father and attained the age of majority in the year 2003. Presently, the petitioner is 33 years of age.
8. It is noticed that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is framed so as to extend an immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased government servant, 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 particular contingency cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
9. In the matter of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana", [1994(4) SCC 138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "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 Hon'ble Court has 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 (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:56 AM) (5 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." (emphasis supplied)
10. In "State of J&K vs. Sajjad Ahmed Mir", 2006(5) SCC, 766, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
"11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sector should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied)
11. Similarly, in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1996 (1) SCC 301) the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under :
"The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:56 AM) (6 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if the contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged dehors the recruitment rules." (emphasis supplied)
12. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, a Division Bench of this Court in 'Shambhu Puri Vs. State', 2003 WLC (Raj.) 404, opined as under :
"9. However, we are of the opinion that this Court would not issue a writ of mandamus in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad's case (Supra), which is more nearer to him to the case at hand. Compassionate appointment to be offered to a dependent of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness is not a vested right and his appointment cannot be kept waiting if he is minor, till he gets the age of maturity, whatever may be the intervening period, the object of the compassionate appointment as an under exception to general rule is to tide over the immediate crisis which arises on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family and it ceases to exist with the passage of time and the difficulty, it any, faced by the family, becomes at par with the difficulty faced by any other family who too is in search of employment for any of the members. In such cases, no preferential treatment other (sic) the Rules of 1996 can be given."
13. Thus, it is settled law that the appointment on compassionate ground dehors the relevant recruitment rules is offered to the dependent of deceased government servant to tide over the sudden crisis, which arises on account of sad demise of (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:56 AM) (7 of 7) [CW-7660/2019] breadwinner of the family, therefore, no one can claim the appointment on compassionate ground at any time in future after the crisis period is over.
14. In the backdrop of position of law settled as above, in the considered opinion of this court, at this stage when the petitioner has already attained the age of 33 years and the crisis period is already over, the question of petitioner being extended appointment on compassionate ground does not arise.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the original application preferred by the petitioner assailing the legality of the order passed by the respondents, rejecting his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground, does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
16. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
(P.K. LOHRA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
21-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:16:56 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)