Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajbir Singh S/O Late Ram Dass vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 28 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No.3189/2014 Reserved on : 03.08.2015 Pronounced on: 28.08.2015 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Rajbir Singh S/o late Ram Dass, R/o Quarter No.33, Type-III, Staff Quarters, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095. ... Applicant (By Advocate : Ms. Subhra Mendiratta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Secretary, Services Department-II, Delhi Secretariat, 5th Level, A-Wing, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary (Services), Services Department-II, Delhi Secretariat, 5th Level, A-Wing, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ... Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Pandita) O R D E R
This is an Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of the order of the respondent No.2 dated 20.12.2013 rejecting the application of the applicant to give him appointment on compassionate ground.
2. I have heard Ms. Subhra Mendiratta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Kumar Pandita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It appears that the applicants father late Ram Dass was working in the Directorate of Training and Technical Education as Vice Principal. He, however, died in harness on 08.08.2008. It further appears that the applicant made an application on 28.10.2009, more than a year after the death of his father, seeking compassionate appointment for him. The request of the applicant was considered by the screening committee in its meeting held on 18/19.09.2013, but keeping in view the financial condition and liabilities etc. of the family, the committee did not recommend his case for compassionate appointment, and the applicant was accordingly informed vide order dated 20.12.2013. Aggrieved, the applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal for the following relief:
(a) Call for the records of the case;
(b) Quash and set aside the order F.No.16/79/2013/S-II/4542-4624 dated 20.12.2013 whereby the representation filed by the petitioned dated 16.01.2013 and 20.05.2013 has been rejected;
(c) Set-aside the order F. No.16/79/2013/S-II/4542-4624 dated 20.12.2013.
(d) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted by this Honble Tribunal, in addition to the heavy cost against the respondent and in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the deceased employee left behind family of five members, i.e., his widow, two unmarried daughters and two sons. He further submits that the amount of family pension is not adequate to maintain such a large family in these hard times. Besides, the applicant has the liability of marrying his two sisters. It is further contended that the representation of the applicant for giving him compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents in a casual manner without application of mind, and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Kumar Pandita, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the prayer and submitted that the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was examined by the screening committee on various occasions, i.e., 20.10.2010, 09.12.2010, 17.02.2012, 30.03.2012, and finally on 18/19.09.2013. The screening committee, however, having regard to the payment of terminal benefits and the monthly family pension paid to the applicants mother, found that the family does not fulfil the criteria laid down vide OM dated 16.01.2013 and 30.05.2013 for grant of compassionate appointment, hence did not recommend his case. He further submitted that the family of the deceased employee received Rs.15,83,805/- against retiral benefits, besides getting monthly family pension of Rs.11,755/- plus dearness allowance. He also argued that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and at the most, the applicant is entitled to be considered for such appointment, provided he fulfils the conditions laid down in the rules/instructions issued for grant of such appointment, and further the family is found to be in a penurious condition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]; Auditor General of India v G. Ananta Rajeshwar Rao [(1994) 1 SCC 192]; L.I.C. v Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar and others [JT 1994 (2) SC 83]; Union of India v Joginder Sharma [(2002) 8 SCC 65]; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) SC 319]; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalia [JT 1996 (9) SC 197]; Haryana State Electricity Board and another v Hakim Singh [JT 1997 (8) SC 332]; Haryana State electricity Board v Naresh Tanwar and another [JT 1996 (2) SC 542]; Jagdish Prasad v State of Hihar [(1996) 1 SCC 301]; and a judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 10.03.2005 in WP No.1594/2003 in Raj Kumar Lohmorh v GNCT of Delhi. The learned counsel also relied on DOP&T OM No.14014/6/95-Estt., dated 26.09.1995 intimating that compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group C and D posts.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the records. In the matter of compassionate appointment, the legal position is well settled. The object and purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to obviate the immediate hardship which has fallen on the family because of the sudden demise of the sole bread earner, and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The dependent of a deceased employee has only right to be considered for compassionate appointment, keeping in view various factors, such as financial condition of the family and subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana (supra), the Apex Court, while examining the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate grounds, held that even though, as a rule, appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications, however, to this general rule, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies, and one such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian considerations taking into account the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide employment to one of the dependents of the deceased, who may be eligible for such employment. The Apex Court further held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period, and that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future, and further that 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 bread earner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. This view is again reiterated by the Apex Court in State of M.P. and others v B. S. Bhadoria [C.A. No.4588 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34238 of 2012, decided on 16.04.2014]. In State of Haryana v Naresh Kumar Bali [(1994) 4 SCC 448], the Apex Court held that courts could merely direct consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules, and not straightway issue direction to appoint, as judicial review is directed against the decision-making process and not against the decision itself, and further it is not the function of the court to exercise the power of the authorities. In State of J&K and others v Sajad Ahmed Mir [(2006) 5 SCC 766] relying on its earlier judgment in State of Haryana v Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) the Apex Court held that once it is proved that in spite of death of the bread winner, the family survived and a substantial period is over, there is no necessity to deviate from the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to a person at the cost of interests of several others, ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. The above view is reiterated and consistently followed by the Apex Court. In State Bank of India and another v Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661] their Lordships observed that the dependents of an employee who dies in harness do not have any special case or claim to employment except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. In MGB Gramin Bank v Chakrawarti Singh [AIR 2013 SC 3365], it is held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor a dependent of the deceased becomes automatically entitled to get such appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances, i.e., eligibility and financial condition of the family, etc., and it has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. Therefore, the Honble Supreme Court consistently held that a dependent of the deceased employee dying in harness is only entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment immediately after death of the employee, or within a reasonable time, provided the family fulfils the conditions of eligibility laid down in the scheme or the rules framed for giving such appointment, and suffers from destitution. This view still holds the field.
8. In the case in hand, the applicants claim for compassionate appointment, as noted above, was considered on multiple occasions, and looking to the terminal benefits disbursed to the family as well as the monthly family pension, and keeping in view the relevant instructions issued by the Government of India, it was found that the applicants case is not covered by the criteria laid down in relevant instructions/rules, hence his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected.
9. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case and also for the reason that the applicants claim for compassionate appointment is considered objectively and not found tenable because of the fact that the family is not indigent or under financial destitution, besides it does not meet the criteria laid down in the relevant rules/instructions for grant of compassionate appointment, there appears no reason to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of the claim of the applicant. Admittedly, the applicants father died on 08.08.2008, and his claim for compassionate appointment was duly considered on different occasions and finally rejected in the year 2013. Therefore, at this stage, after lapse of seven years from the date of death of his father, in the absence of indigent condition of the family, no direction can be given to consider his claim again for giving compassionate appointment, which would not only be in violation of the mandate of the Constitution but would also defeat the very object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the Application. It is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
( Syed Rafat Alam ) Chairman /as/