Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Ram vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 21 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)140PLR818
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar, M.M. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground. His father had joined the then Haryana State Electricity Board on April 14, 1973 as an Assistant Lineman. His services were regularised w.e.f June 9, 1992. His father was electrocuted whilst on duty and he died on August 24, 2002. The petitioner submitted an application for being appointed on compassionate ground. His claim was, however, rejected by the respondents on October 3, 2003 which prompted the petitioner to file Civil Writ Petition No. 17896 of 2003. The claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, he was 55 years and 10 days of age. In other words, he would be entitled to all retirement benefits. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J) was a Member, on September 17, 2004.
2. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Rule 3(d)(iii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees (Amendment) Rules, 2004 is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, it was submitted that the petitioner had made an application on September 3, 2002. Had the application been considered and processed promptly, the claim of the petitioner would have been covered under the instructions dated 8.5.1995, which have been adopted by the respondents in the meeting held on 19.7.1995. In other words, it was argued that the claim of the petitioner had to be accepted on the basis of the instructions which were applicable at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner. This submission was accepted as there was a provision in the instructions dated 8.5.1995 that all cases of ex-gratia appointment shall be processed and decided by the Head of the Department within three months of the receipt of the application. It was observed that the 2003 Rules were adopted by a Circular dated March 31, 2002. Therefore, although the order denying appointment to the petitioner had been passed on October 3, 2003, the claim of the petitioner had arisen on the death of his father on August 24, 2002. The Court also noticed that even under the 2003 Rules the claim of the petitioner cannot now be rejected as there had been an amendment in the aforesaid rules. By amendment dated February 10, 2004, the Rule 3(d)(iii) of 2003 Rules had been omitted. In view of the above, this Court had quashed the order dated October 3, 2003 and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of his father within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. September 17, 2004.
3. The respondents have now considered the claim of the petitioner and passed an order dated December 15, 2004 again rejecting the claim of the petitioner. After noticing the observations made by this Court, quoted above, the respondents have relied on a further amendment made in Rule 4(c) of the Haryana Government's Notification No. GSR-6/Const/ART-309/2004 dated 10.2.2004, which reads as under:
"Ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of deceased government employee to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2.5 lacs in case the Government employee died in harness at the age of 55 years or thereafter."
4. In view of the above, it has been held that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. Although the respondents have made a reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 6820 of 2004 decided on February 29, 2004 in support of its decision to decline the appointment to the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down any law as the same has been rendered on the basis of the concession made by the counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, while issuing notice of motion, this Court had observed as follows:
"At the commencement of arguments, Shri B.R. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that he does not want to press the petitioner's challenge to para No. 3 of Annexure P-1 and will feel satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his claim for grant of financial assistance in terms of the rules."
5. On the basis of the aforesaid, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of financial assistance in terms of the 2003 Rules, as amended by Notification No. G.S.R. 6/Const./Art/ 309/2004 dated 10.2.2004.
6. We are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds can not succeed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Service Cases Today 174, wherein it has been observed as under:
"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.
It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1989)4 S.L.R. 327 has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV.
For these very reasons, 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 bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
7. It is to be noticed that father of the petitioner passed away on August 24, 2002. The family must have received the retirement benefits on account of the service rendered by the deceased. As held by the Supreme Court, the purpose for making an exception to the general rules for appointment in public sector, by appointment on compassionate grounds, is to help the family to tide over the emergent situation caused by the untimely death of the only bread-winner. The purpose is not to give a job to the dependent for the job which was held by the deceased employee. Undoubtedly the appointment on compassionate grounds can only be granted in exceptional circumstances of extreme hardship. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the family of the petitioner is so proverty stricken that the petitioner ought to be granted a job on compassionate grounds. If the family can survive for a period of almost three years, it is indicative of the fact that the family is not without resources.