Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Ranjit Mahto vs The Union Of India Through Chief ... on 16 April, 2021

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(S) No. 1141 of 2009

Ranjit Mahto, son of Late Puran Mahto, resident of village-Kadma,
Post-Kanke, Police Station-Kanke, District-Ranchi
                                                    ... Petitioner
                             Versus
1. The Union of India through Chief Engineer, the Head Quarter
Central Command, Lucknow-02
2. The Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone, Bhagat Marg, Post Box
No. 84, Jabalpur Cantonment-482001
3. The SE/SG SOI (Personnel and Legal) for Chief Engineer,
Jabalpur Zone, Bhagat Marg, Post Box No. 84, Jabalpur
Cantonment-482001
4. The Executive Engineer, Garrison Engineer, Ranchi
                                                ... Respondents
                          -------

(Through V.C ) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP For the UOI : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate

-------

Order No. 06/Dated: 17th April, 2021 The father of the petitioner was a permanent employee under the Indian Army. He died in harness on 15.03.1996 leaving behind his widow and five children. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.04.1996 seeking appointment for him on compassionate ground. However, the request for employment assistance for the petitioner was declined, vide a communication contained in final order dated 31.03.2004, on the ground of non-availability of sufficient vacancy within 5% quota. A further representation by the petitioner was rejected on 06.08.2007 and he was communicated that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground may be treated as finally closed.

2. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay is patently illegal because whatever delay had occurred that was at the end of the employer and not on the part of the dependent of the deceased employee.

3. In the counter-affidavit the respondent-Union of India has taken a stand that the deceased employee Puran Mahto had left behind two married daughters, one married son, one unmarried daughter and one unmarried son - the petitioner was the elder son who at the time of death of his father was a married person. In the light of the instructions contained in letter dated 09.03.2001 of the Ministry of Defence various components, such as, size of family, age of the children, amount of terminal benefits, pension liability for the unmarried son/daughter and movable/immovable property of the family are taken into consideration and appointment is offered to the deserving candidate falling within the ceiling of 5% quota.

4. The final order dated 31.03.2004 takes note of the following factors:

"4. According to the documents submitted by you, the following is the position/status of the family of the deceased Government Servant :-

(a) The death of the Government servant occurred on 15.03.96. His wife, 02 son and 03 daughters survive him. The deceased Government servant's family received Rs. 1,37,095/- as terminal benefits. At present they are in receipt of monthly pension of Rs. 1275/- plus DA.

(b) The family has 1.53 Acres land property.

5. The Board of Officer at this Headquarters after taking into account each aspect referred to above, has considered your case alongwith other candidates. However due to more deserving cases and few vacancies available, your case was not recommended by the Board of Officer for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of this competent authority is of the view that your case does not deserve Employment Assistance on compassionate ground. (Moreover, the need for immediate assistant by way on compassionate employment to tide over the emergency and crisis is lacking in your case as the death of the Govt. Servant was on 15.03.96 (06 years and 04 month before his normal retirement).

6. Therefore, after due circumspection and consideration in the light of the enclosed guidelines of DOP&T and various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right and after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case including the decision of Board of Officers, at this HQ the competent authority has rejected the employment assistance to Shri Ranjit Mahto, S/o- Late Puran Mahto, V/Mant on compassionate grounds due to non-availability of sufficient vacancy within 5% quota."

5. There is no challenge by the petitioner that there was a serious flaw in various considerations in terms of the extant 3 W.P.(S) No. 1141 of 2009 instructions of the Ministry of Defence. Having examined the materials on record, I do not find any error in the approach of the respondent-Authority who has passed the order dated 31.03.2004 and there is no apparent flaw in the decision making process. It was only in the context of the letter dated 20.01.2007 by the petitioner that in the communication dated 06.08.2007 the respondent-Authority had informed him that compassionate appointment can be offered only within a reasonable period but in his case more than eleven years had passed. Be that as it may, the applicable instructions of the Ministry of Defence do not contemplate employment assistance to a dependent of the deceased employee about a decade after the death. The law also does permit compassionate appointment within a reasonable period only.

6. It "Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana" (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"6. ..... 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 cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

7. In "MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh" (2014) 13 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years."

8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and, more particularly, twenty five years after the death of the employee a claim for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased employee cannot be entertained.

9. Accordingly, W.P.(S) No. 1141 of 2009 is dismissed.

10. I.A. No. 4780 of 2017 filed for early hearing stands disposed of.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/