Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Chandra Rangi vs Union Of India Through on 21 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 1245
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7893/2019
Suresh Chandra Rangi S/o Late Shri Dharma Ram Rangi, Aged
About 32 Years, B/c Rangi (SC), R/o Vill P- Meghwalo Ka Bass,
Sumerpur, District Pali (Late Shri Dharma Ram Rangi Was Posted
At Udaipur Under BSNL As TM).
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India through;
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through The Chief General
Manager, Telecommunication, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Sardar
Patel Marg, Jaipur.
2. Asstt. General Manager (R & E), BSNL O/o Chief General
Manager CGMT, Rajasthan Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, C Scheme,
Jaipur- 302 008
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Naresh Mohan Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 21/10/2019
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 2.11.18 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, whereby an original application preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of order dated 22.7.17, rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner's father Shri Dharmaram who was employed as Telephone Mechanic in BSNL died while in service on 4.7.07. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in June, 2018. According (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM) (2 of 7) [CW-7893/2019] to the petitioner, his candidature for appointment alongwith others was considered by the Committee and having secured 61 weightage points, he was recommended for appointment, however, the candidate Smt. Yashoda, lower in merit in the list than the petitioner, was offered appointment. The petitioner served the respondents with a notice for demand of justice dated 22.2.13 but to no avail. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.93/2014 before the CAT, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.7.16. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred D.B.C.Writ Petition No.13254/16 before this court, which was allowed only to the limited extent in the following terms:
"In the Original Application that there was a generalised pleading with regard to consideration for three successive years and the Circular dated 05.05.2003 was not mentioned. It is therefore not possible for us to make any positive statement on the same. Additionally, it is not known whether the Circular issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, is applicable to the Respondent- Corporation. It also does not appear from the impugned order that it was urged during arguments before the Tribunal. It shall be open for the Petitioner to approach the authorities for that limited relief under the Circular dated 05.05.2003 if applicable to BSNL, to be considered and disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order."
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this court as aforesaid, the respondents considered the representation made by the petitioner and the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by a reasoned order dated 22.7.17. Aggrieved thereby, an original application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the CAT by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
(Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM)
(3 of 7) [CW-7893/2019]
4. After due consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had scored 61 points whereas, the selected candidate Smt. Yashoda scored 75 points and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner that he was more deserving in comparison to Smt. Yashoda, was found to be devoid of any merit. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. : 1994(4) SCC 138, the Tribunal opined that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right and it cannot be claimed or offered after the lapse of time when the crisis is over.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the CAT has failed to consider that the persons who had secured lesser weightage points than the petitioner, have been granted appointment. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's family are still suffering a great financial crisis and thus, the denial of the appointment without consideration of the candidature strictly in accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment, is absolutely unjustified.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. Indisputably, the petitioner's father had expired while in service on 4.5.07. The petitioner holding the educational qualification of Matriculation, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the scheme, subject to availability of vacancies, the candidature of the dependents of the deceased employee of the BSNL is considered for appointment on compassionate ground after comparative assessment of all the (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-7893/2019] applicants. It is to be noticed that in the original application filed, the petitioner had claimed preferential right for appointment on the strength of the weightage points qua the candidate Smt. Yashoda. It has come on record that on the assessment made, the petitioner secured 61 weightage points whereas, Smt. Yashoda had secured 75 points and thus, the entire edifice of the claim raised by the petitioner for preferential right of appointment is without foundation. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the CAT in this regard, after due consideration of the material on record, cannot be faulted with.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 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 (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM) (5 of 7) [CW-7893/2019] 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 cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
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 (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-7893/2019] 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 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."
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 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. Admittedly, the petitioner and his family have survived without appointment being granted for all these years and at this (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM) (7 of 7) [CW-7893/2019] stage, when the crisis occurred on account of sudden death of petitioner's father is over, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground after a lapse of about 12 years since death of his father.
15. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the CAT does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
44-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:45:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)