Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh Chand Pandey vs State (Education Department)Ors on 28 July, 2016
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.808/2015
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6963/2012
Mukesh Chand Pandey S/o Late Shri Umesh Chand Pandey, R/o Adarsh Colony, Behind Head post office, Paibagh, Tehsil and district Bharatpur.
...Appellant Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
3.District Education Officer-II, Bharatpur.
4.Principal, Government Sr. Secondary School, Halena, District Bharatpur.
...Respondents
DATE:28.07.2016
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NAVIN SINHA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Mr. Ashok Bansal, for the appellant.
*****
The present appeal arises from order dated 06.07.2015 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6963/2012 declining to interfere with the order dated 07.02.2012 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.
Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no delay in preferring the claim for compassionate appointment. Immediately after the death of his father in harness on 15.02.2003, the appellant applied promptly on 25.03.2003. Because his stepmother also raised certain claims with regard to the superannuation benefits, the appellant was required to obtain a succession certificate, as also directed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3005/2004 preferred by him earlier. The fact that his sister may have been appointed earlier on compassionate grounds after the death of their mother in harness is irrelevant as she is now married and living separately and that the appellant was seeking compassionate appointment in lieu of his father. The appellant possessed the qualification requisite for appointment as LDC in 2003. Any subsequent change in the qualifications for appointment cannot affect his claims. Alternatively, if he was not eligible for LDC, at least he could have been considered for a Class-IV post.
We have heard Counsel for the appellant.
Any appointment in Government service is required to be made strictly in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and competitive merit selection as employment under the Government constitutes a national wealth. A limited exception has been carved out by providing for compassionate appointment to save the family of a Government servant from destitute and penury due to the sudden and untimely death. Therefore there is always an urgency in the matter of compassionate appointment. Delay on part of the authorities in considering the claim and laxity or controversies attributable to the claimant are entirely different matters. The mere fact that the application may have been submitted in time will not suffice if there are impediments in the consideration of the same in accordance with law, particularly when it is attributable to squabble in the family of the deceased. The father of the appellant was deceased in harness on 15.02.2003. Undoubtedly he applied for compassionate appointment on 25.03.2003. Unfortunately his claims were embroiled in controversies raised by his stepmother as his father solemnized two marriages. On the earlier occasion this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3005/2004 directed him to obtain a succession certificate in lieu of the controversy. The succession certificate was granted to him on 30.07.2009, which is also disputed now by the stepmother, as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the authorities. In State of Chhattisgarh And Others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600, it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by virtue of inheritance through a succession certificate, which in any event was not explanation for the delay in applying for compassionate appointment observing at paragraph 22 as follows:-
A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose favour succession certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right thereunder. The succession certificate merely enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status was conferred on him thereby. It did not prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant. Even otherwise, the respondent and his father were entitled to the said dues being his heirs and legal representatives.
The very fact that the appellant has managed to survive since February, 2003, litigate with his stepmother, moved the court for succession certificate as also this Court on more than one occasion are all more than sufficient evidence that appointment on compassionate grounds was not a compelling necessity for the appellant and he had the wherewithal to survive.
We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned order for the additional reasons as discussed by us.
The appeal is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (NAVIN SINHA),C.J. /KKC