Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramveer Singh vs D/O Post on 29 July, 2024
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.108/2023
This the 29th Day of July, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Ramveer Singh, Son of late Hari Lal, R/o Village-Chakferi, Post Office - Rehra,
District - J.P. Nagar (Amroha).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri H.L. Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Director (Appointment), Office of Chief Post Master General,
Uttar Pradesh Parimandal, Lucknow.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post, Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad.
4. Senior Post Master, Post Office - Amroha, Sub Division, Amroha.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
The applicant filed the present Original Application (O.A.) on 18.09.2020 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 passed by respondent No.2 whereby, rejected the applicant's claim for appointment under compassionate grounds. He also seeks a direction for the respondents to appoint him to a suitable post specifically Group 'D' on compassionate grounds. Due to a delay in filing the present O.A., the applicant has also filed a Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application (MA No. 911/2020) supported by an affidavit requesting the condonation of the delay in filing the O.A. 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant's father, Shri Hori Lal, retired from service on medical grounds on 22.10.1999 and passed away on 29.08.2001. Subsequently, the applicant's mother submitted an application along with the necessary documents on 01.12.2001 for the appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds. However, this application was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.05.2013. In response, the applicant filed Original Application No. 933/2014 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by an order dated 04.05.2018 with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case according to the existing rules and guidelines of the Government, considering the available vacancies, and to issue a speaking and reasoned order.
3. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondents again rejected the applicant's claim vide an order dated 16.10.2018. This rejection is challenged by the applicant in the present O.A. which was filed on 18.09.2020 i.e. two years after the passing of the impugned order. Consequently, a delay has occurred, and for this reason, the applicant has also filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in filing the Original Application (OA) is attributed to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. There was no deliberate default on the part of the applicant; however, due to unemployment and financial constraints, the applicant was unable to file the OA within the stipulated time frame before the Tribunal.
5. On 06.11.2020, a direction was issued to the respondents to file an objection to the Delay Condonation Application. In response, on 06.07.2021, the respondents filed the objection along with the Counter Affidavit. The respondents stated that the applicant has claimed compassionate appointment 17 years after the death of the deceased employee. The applicant challenged the order dated 16.10.2018 in 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.3 September 2020, without explaining the delay from 16.10.2018 to 13.09.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that on 22.04.2013 the applicant was informed by the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow that his appointment on compassionate grounds was not recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) due to his comparative merit points under the limited vacancy quota. Subsequently, in compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2018, the applicant's case was reconsidered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on 27&28.09.2018. The Committee again did not recommend the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds citing that there are only two dependents of the deceased. The fact that the family has managed for more than 17 years indicates they had adequate means of subsistence, negating the need for immediate assistance to relieve economic distress. Hence, in view of the Office Memoranda dated 26.07.2012 and 30.05.2013 issued by DoP&T, the CRC did not recommend the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by Shri H.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
8. First, we see the object of the Compassionate Appointment and Rules & criteria etc. related to Compassionate Appointment. In this regard, it will be useful to refer to some case laws. It is established by Catena of decisions of the Apex Court that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, an appointment on compassionate grounds offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
9. In the case of H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653, the Supreme Court in Para-21 and 26 had an occasion to consider the object and 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.4 purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. L.I.C. (2005) 10 SCC 289, it is observed and held:-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract:
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.5 and IV are the lowest posts in non−manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."
"26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case."
10. Therefore it is established law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.6 rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
11. In view of the Full Bench judgments of M.P. High Court reported in Bank of Maharashtra and another vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia and another 2010 (3) MPLJ (FB) 213 and State of M.P. and others vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar 2018 (4) MPLJ 657, the policy which was applicable at the time of consideration of the case, will be applicable and not the policy which was in vogue at the time of death of employee or the time when an application was submitted. No doubt, this question "as to which policy will be applicable" is referred for consideration to a Larger Bench by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others vs. Sheo Shankar Tiwari 2019 (5) SCC 600.
12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. V. Somayashree (2021) 12 SCC 20 = 2021 SCC online SC 704 had an occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Supreme Court summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-
10.1 That the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
10.2 That no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
10.3 The appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
10.4 Appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.7 10.5 The norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
13. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Prem Lata (2022) 1 SCC 30 and State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Smt. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR 2022 SC 5176 = AIR online 2022 S.C. 471 (dt.30.09.22) and Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B., AIR 2022 SC 4766 = AIR online 2022 SC 343 (dt.30.09.2022). Therefore, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of the claim of compassionate appointment.
14. Recently in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., AIR 2023 SC 1467 = AIR Online 2023 SC 174 [03.03.2023] the Supreme Court considered the various cases on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide the determination of claims for compassionate appointment. After referring the Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797, Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301, I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, said in para 7.2., that on consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
"i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.8 ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source."
Again in para 7.2 & 7.3 and 7.5 the court said:-
"7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.
7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependents of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.
2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.9 7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee."
15. After thoroughly examining the submissions of both parties, the documents on record, and the circumstances leading to the delay as well as the judgments and orders quoted above, it is evident that the applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Original Application (O.A.) from 16.10.2018 to 18.09.2020. The explanation offered, citing unemployment and financial constraints, does not sufficiently justify the extensive delay in seeking redressal.
16. Moreover, on the merits of the case, the respondents have consistently adhered to the guidelines and rules governing compassionate appointments. The applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was reconsidered twice by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) and was rejected both times based on the merit points and the fact that the applicant's family has managed for more than 17 years, demonstrating that they had adequate means of subsistence. The CRC's decisions were based on the relevant Office Memoranda issued by the DoP&T, which emphasizes the necessity of immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee to relieve economic distress--a criterion the applicant does not meet.
2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30' Page No.10
17. In view of the above, the delay condonation application (MA No. 911/2020) is dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide a convincing justification for the delay. Consequently, the Original Application is also dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As (Miscellaneous Applications), if any, are considered disposed of. The registry will take the necessary steps to remove the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil 2024.08.01 SUSHIL KUMAR 09:59:06 SRIVASTAVA +05'30'