Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Singh vs Union Of India on 16 July, 2019
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2445/2019
Kalu Singh S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Neem
Ka Khera, Post Dhuvala, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western
Railway, Hasanpura Road, Jaipur.
2. Chief Administrative Officer, (Construction Unit), North
Western Railway, Hasanpura Road, Jaipur.
3. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), North Western Railway,
Ajmer.
4. Senior Divisional Officer, (Western Central Railway), Kota.
5. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamal Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 16/07/2019
1. This petition is directed against order dated 23.1.19 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, assailing the legality of order issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Manager, Western Central Railway, Kota, rejecting his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner's father late Shri Hari Singh initially appointed with the respondents as Casual (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM) (2 of 7) [CW-2445/2019] Labourer was granted temporary status on 26.9.86 in the scale of 775-1025 under permanent Way Inspector, Beawar Station of Central Western Railway. He died while in service on 6.7.97. The petitioner's mother submitted an application to the respondents whereby while expressing her unwillingness for appointment on compassionate ground, stated that his son is only 8 years of age and there is nobody else in family who can get appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, prayed to grant appointment when the child becomes major. After a lapse of about 16 years, the petitioner's mother submitted an application on 18.9.13 seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, which was forwarded by Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)-I, Ajmer to the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Central Railway, Kota on the same day. The application was rejected by the competent authority and the decision was communicated to the petitioner's mother vide letter dated nil/10/2016. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred original application before the CAT as aforesaid, which stands dismissed by the order impugned.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the CAT has seriously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner's father was having only temporary status and his services were not regularised by the respondents and therefore, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's father was treated to be regular employee and his mother was granted family pension pursuant to order dated 17.11.05 passed by the learned CAT, which was upheld by Division Bench of this court vide order dated 9.2.10 passed in D.B.C.Writ (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM) (3 of 7) [CW-2445/2019] Petition No.8180/06. Learned counsel submitted that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner by the CAT on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the original application is also unjustified inasmuch as, against the order passed by the respondents in October, 2016, the petitioner had immediately filed the original application and thus, the same could not have been considered to be belated in terms of provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1985.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the material on record.
5. Indisputably, the petitioner's mother, who was entitled to claim employment being dependent of her deceased husband, expressed her unwillingness for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner, who was 8 years of age at the time of death of his father, did not claim employment immediately on attaining the age of majority rather, the claim for employment on compassionate ground on behalf of the petitioner was made after 16 years of the death of his father when he had already attained the age of more than 23 years.
6. It is noticed that 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.
7. 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 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-2445/2019] 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 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."
8. 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 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM) (5 of 7) [CW-2445/2019] 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)
9. 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 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." (emphasis supplied)
10. 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 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-2445/2019] 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."
11. 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.
12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner's father had died in the year 1997 when the petitioner was only 8 years of age. By this time, the petitioner has attained the age of more than 30 years, therefore, at this belated stage, when the crisis period is already over, the question of petitioner being accorded appointment on compassionate ground does not arise. Such consideration at this belated stage would be against the very object and spirit of the scheme of compassionate appointment made by the respondents.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM)
(7 of 7) [CW-2445/2019]
13. Thus, even if the original application preferred by the petitioner before the CAT is considered to be within limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground at this belated stage.
14. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
58-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)