Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Tek Singh Thapa vs M/O Defence on 11 February, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.N0.060/00333/2018
Chandigarh, this the 11.2.2020
(Order reserved on: 8.01.2020)
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
Tek Singh Thapa, aged 26 years, S/o Late Sh. Prem
Singh Thapa, R/o Distt. Kalipur, Vill. Suktiya, Nepal,
Group 'C' C/o Sandeep Siwatch, C.A.T., BAR
Association, Chandigarh.
Applicant
(BY: MR. SANDEEP SIWATCH, ADVOCATE)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batar Road, Palam Cantt-110010.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Western Command, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh.
4. Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts, O/o PCDA
(WC), Sector 9-A, Chandigarh.
(BY: MR. B.B. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
Respondents
2
ORDER
[HON'BLE SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)]
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to quash order passed in November, 2017 (Annexure A-1), read with order dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure A-2) and 22.12.2011 (Annexure A-3), vide which his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
2. The facts are largely not in dispute. Shri Prem Singh Thapa, father of the applicant, while working as Frash, expired on 2.11.1996, leaving the widow, son (applicant) and two daughters in penury. The applicant was minor at that time. The family shifted to Nepal. Widow also expired in 1998. Sister of applicant was allowed family pension. The applicant attained majority in 2009 and submitted representation for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected on 22.12.2011 (Annexure A-3) on ground of delay and on fresh attempt, his case was rejected once again on 9.5.2012 (Annexure A-2). Further representations were made during 2013, 2014 and 2015 and respondents indulged in some correspondence including verification of factual position. Ultimately, it was declined vide order dated November, 2017, Annexure A-1, on the 3 ground that family was able to pull on for 21 years and as such his case cannot be considered after such delay. Hence the O.A.
3. Respondents have filed a reply. They submit that case of applicant was rejected as death had taken place in 1996 and claim for appointment on compassionate ground after a lapse of reasonable period was not justified. Moreover, the family as able to pull on for about 21 years, without service, which is adequate proof that family has dependable means of subsistence, as per para 9 (a) of DoP&T O.M dated 16.1.2013.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on file.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that notwithstanding the delay, the case of applicant could not be rejected as in 1996, when death took place, the applicant was only a minor and he applied for such appointment as soon as he attained majority. Thus, delay would not come in his way for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and in any case the instructions of 2013 cannot be applied retrospectively to his prejudice, which was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4
6. The issue as raised in this O.A. about appointment of a minor on compassionate grounds, on attaining majority, has been set at rest in a number of cases and as such court is not required the delve over the issue all over again.
7. In the case in the case of JAGDISH PRASAD VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. JT 1995 (9) SC 131, the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the case of a minor who had claimed compassionate appointment after he had attained majority while observing as follows:
"It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the Court is required to examine whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. 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 old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that 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."
8. Similarly, in the case of HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. NARESH TANWAR & ANR. (1996) 8 SCC 23, the widow of a deceased employee had made an application after twelve years claiming compassionate appointment for her son who had since attained majority. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that compassionate appointment 5 could not be restricted to a period of three years and if assistance to the members of the family of a deceased employee is required to be given, the member of the family must necessarily attain majority before becoming eligible to apply for appointment. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court observed as follows:
"It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. It appears to us that the principle of compassionate appointment as indicated in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, is not only reasonable but consistent with the principle of employment in government and public sector. The impugned decisions of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."
9. Not only that, in the case of HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. VS. HAKIM SINGH (1997) 8 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with a case of a widow who had applied after a period of 18 years for appointing her son who was four years old when his father died in harness, contending that she could make the application only when her son attained majority. The High Court had allowed the writ petition. 6 While allowing the appeal, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"We are of the view that the High Court has erred in over stretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis be-fallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member."
10. Similarly, in the case of SANJAY KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (2000) 7 SCC 192, Hon'ble Apex Court again dealt with a case of compassionate appointment of a minor who had made an application upon attaining majority and it was held, inter-alia, as under :-
".. compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. ...on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time, as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
11. Even otherwise, as is apparent, in this case the family has been able to pull on for 21 years, and as such one cannot find fault with the action of respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for 7 appointment on compassionate grounds and the plea for retrospective operation of 2013 instructions is too farfetched. The appointment cannot be claimed and granted on descent basis. In the case of I.G. (KARMIK) ETC. VS. P. M.TRIPATHI 2007 (6) SCC 162 it was held that "Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. turns out to be devoid of any merit and is rejected accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.A.No.1687/2019 also stands disposed of as such.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 11.2.2020 HC*