Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 10 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.NO. 700/PB/2012 Date of Order:- October 4, 2012. Coram: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) Rajesh Kumar son of late Shri Malkiat Ram, Village & Post Office Takhatgarh, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (Punjab). Applicant (By Advocate: Mr.Rohit Seth) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Assistant Post Master General (Staff), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-160017. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division, Chandigarhy-160017. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Suresh Verma) O R D E R(Oral). Honble Mrs.Promilla Issar, Member (A):
The applicant has filed the present O.A. praying for the following reliefs:-
i) Quash the order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure A-1) which merged in order dated 13.4.2012 (Annexure A-2) vide which the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on totally untenable grounds with a mention that Committee examined all aspects i.e. financial position of the family and liabilities etc. and that financial condition of the family is not indigent and needs no compassion and such findings are based on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law;
ii) Direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with rules and law by taking into consideration the money spent by the family on medical treatment of the applicant and construction of the house and by giving due weightage to number of dependents of family; from the total amount received by family6 on account of death of the employee and after such consideration, offer appointment to the applicant.
2. It is the projected case of the applicant that his father, late Shri Malkiat Ram, was working as Postman in the respondent department and he died of cancer on 24.9.2008, leaving behind the applicants mother, two sons including the applicant and one daughter. He has stated that all of them were unemployed and the family had to survive on a meagre amount of Rs.6000/- per month as family pension. He has stated that the family has an immovable property on 10 marla ancestral land. He has stated that ever since his father had been suffering from cancer and thereafter, after he his death, his family has been living in penury.
3. The applicant has further stated that he had submitted an application dated 3.11.2008 for appointment on compassionate grounds, but his claim was rejected vide order dated 18.1.2010 on the ground that the Circle Relaxation Committee had observed in its meeting held on 6.1.2010 that the family is not living in an indigent condition. He applied again for compassionate appointment, but his request was again rejected vide order dated 13.4.2012, even when a number of other persons, who are less indigent than the applicant, have been given such appointment. Hence this O.A.
4. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the O.A. is hopelessly time-barred since it has been filed by the applicant after a delay of two years. They have further taken the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, for the reason that the applicant has not impleaded the persons whose cases he has referred to as having been given compassionate appointment in preference to his claim. They have relied upon the judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Local Administration Department versus M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu decided on 5.4.2011, in which it has been observed that An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. They have also sought support from the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana (1994(4) S.C.C. Page 138). They have also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager(D&PB) and others versus Kunti Tiwari & Another (2004(7) S.C.C Page 271).
5. The respondents have also stated that the family had been paid a total amount of Rs.4,14,580/- as terminal benefits and is also in receipt of family pension. They have further stated that the overall financial condition, liabilities, responsibility for marriage & education etc. and other circumstances of the family were considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee and thereafter it had arrived at the conclusion that the circumstances of the applicants family were not as indigent as the other cases which were either approved or recommended for later reconsideration. They have further stated that they have dealt with the applicants case in a fair, legal and impartial manner and in conformity with the instructions on the subject. On these grounds, they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder in which he has mentioned two cases, one of Mr. Sanjay Sethi and the other of Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur who had been declared as eligible for compassionate appointment, and has argued that his case is more deserving than the cases of these persons.
7. The respondents have also filed a reply to the rejoinder, in which they have stated that the case of Shri Sanjay Sethi, the person whose name has been quoted by the applicant in his rejoinder, was not approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee as the financial condition and other financial circumstances of the family were not found to be so indigent. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur is a widow who had to look after her two minor children and had liabilities of their marriage and education and, therefore, her financial condition was found to be far more indigent and liabilities were greater than the applicants.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
9. As per the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the O.A. is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation, the applicant has filed the present O.A in the year 2012 for claiming appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father on 24.9.2008. The respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide orders dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure A-1) and again on 13.4.2012 (Annexure A-2). The fact remains that the cause of action arose in 2008 and the O.A. was filed in 2012 and this delay has not been explained. Therefore, even though the cause of action arose on 18.1.2010, I condone the delay in the filing of this case. The respondents have also raised an objection that the persons named by the applicant as having been given compassionate appointment have not been impleaded as parties. However, I find that this was not necessary since the applicant has not prayed for quashing their appointment.
10. The applicant had a right to be considered for compassionate appointment by the respondents, which they had done. However, his case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee and rejected. The applicant had listed the names of two persons as being less indigent than him and who had been granted appointment on compassionate grounds. In this respect, the respondents have clarified that the case of Shri Sanjay Sethi was rejected. This is borne out by Annexure R-1, which are the minutes of the meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee, held on 6.1.2010, in which the name of Shri Sanjay Sethi appears in the list of cases which were not approved by the CRC for compassionate appointment on the ground that the financial condition and other circumstances of the family were not found to be so indigent. As far as the case of Smt. Kuldeep Kaur is concerned, it has been recorded in the list annexed with the minutes, that the widow had the responsibility of education and marriage of two minor children who were 8 years and 13 years of age at the time of death of the employee and he had about 23 years of service left, whereas in the case of the applicant, the children were adults between the ages of 21 and 24 at the time of death of the employee and he had about ten years of service left at the time of his death. The family pension in the case of the applicant is Rs.6365/- and in the case of Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, it is Rs.4962/-. Therefore, I find that it has been adequately proved on the basis of the documentation placed on record, that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur was more indigent and had more liabilities than the applicant. Therefore, I find that the respondents have acted as per rules/instructions in this case and have given consideration to the claim of the applicant, which could not fructify because of other candidate being more indigent and because of the limited number of posts available.
11. The Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, (J.T. 1994 (3) SC 525) that the whole object of granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to protect the family of the deceased from financial destitution. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis. The Honble Apex Court has reiterated in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2009(6) S.C.C. Page 481), as follows :-
11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints.
12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. In the case of State of Chattisgarh & Ors. Versus Dhirjo Kumar Segar (2009(13) S.C.C. Page 600), the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows :-
15. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of inheritance. It is a concession and not a right.
17. This Court, times without number has held that appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted as a matter of course. It should not be granted only when dependants of the deceased employee who expired all of a sudden while being in service and by reason thereof his dependants have been living in penury. Recently, the Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Local Administration Department & Another versus M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu (Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006) decided on April 5, 2011 that An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
12. Consequently, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this O.A has been found to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR ) MEMBER (A) Dated: October 4, 2012.
Kks 9 ( O.A.NO. 700/PB/2012) (O.A.No.700PB/2012) 1