Kerala High Court
Sreeja vs Chief Postmaster General on 22 November, 2000
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed against the order in O. A. No. 1020 of 1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Application was preferred for compassionate appointment, by the daughter of one K. Valsala, who died on 4.11.1979. She was working as a Postal Assistant in the Palakkad Head Post Office, At that time, the petitioner was 10 months old. Petitioner's father, Sri. P.R. Soman, was an employee of the Postal Department Valsala had a daughter Anuradha in her first marriage. There was dispute between the parties, with regard to sharing of terminal benefits due to Valsala, which led to filing of O.S. No. 381 of 1987 before the Munsif's Court, Palakkad. It was noticed that the said suit was subsequently disposed of on the basis of compromise petition, wherein parties have agreed compassionate appointment be given to Anuradha. Petitioner, however, denies the said claim stating that Anuradha had forsaken her right in favour of the petitioner. We need not go into those controversies in this petition. The only question to be considered in this case is whether petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds. We notice that at the time of death of Valsala, petitioner was only 10 months old. She preferred a petition on 5.7.1997 which was rejected by the authorities by order dated 24.11.1997. She also filed yet another representation dated 3.12.1997 followed by another representation dated 20.1.1999. Those representations were rejected again by the department vide Ext. P6 order dated 21.5.1999.
2. We may examine the claim of the petitioner in those representations. In her first representation she has stated as follows:
Now I am studying in second B.Com. in the Chinmaya Mission College, Palghat. Now I feel I should earn for my livelihood and make life better. I therefore request that I may be provided a job as Postal Assistant in relaxation of normal rules considering the fact that my mother K. Valsala died while in service and that our financial position is not satisfactory.
Again in her representation, Ext. P3, she states as follows:
I am sorry no reason has been advanced for the rejection. I am the unfortunate daughter of late K. Valsala. My father as already stated has re-married and has children in that wife. My father's attention towards me is only nominal. I am in need of a job and I possess the requisite qualification.
In the representation dated 20.1.1999 she stated as follows:
........I have been seeking job avenues for the purpose of earning a livelihood for myself. The relevant rules relating to compassionate appointments of dependants enable me to seek appointment under the said scheme.
We are of the view that the reasons stated by the petitioner in the above mentioned representations are not sufficient enough to raise a claim for compassionate appointment. The Apex Court in L.I.C. v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 stated as follows:
The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. The courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done. In the very case itself, there are regulations and instructions governing the matter. The court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of relevant statutory provisions. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered.
The Apex Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 2230 held as follows:
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 resulting due to the death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. 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. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee.
The above mentioned decision was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 AIR SCW 3082. In that case, the applicant was 16 years old, when his mother died. He made an application, soon after the death of his mother seeking compassionate employment. Dealing with such a petition, Supreme Court stated as follows:
It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gels immediate relief.
We are of the view in this case there is absolutely no material whatsoever to show that unless and until petitioner is provided with a job, the deceased's family would not get over the crisis resulting from the death of the bread earner. Petitioner was 10 months old when her mother died. After she became a major, she preferred the applications. Evidently the family has already got over the sudden crisis befallen on them due to the death of bread winner. Over and above, there is no evidence to show otherwise. The mere statement by the petitioner that she has no means to make her livelihood or that she is in need of a job is not sufficient to make a claim for compassionate appointment. The burden is on the person who claims compassionate appointment to show even though the bread winner died on 4.11.1979, for the last two decades the family is still in penury and without any means of livelihood. The situation of the family as a whole is to be taken note of and not that of the claimant alone. As held by the Apex Court, this is only an exception to the main rule. Such an exception shall not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee.
3. We are of the view that the very purpose of effecting appointment on compassionate ground itself would be defeated if claim raised by persons like the petitioner is accepted. As held by the Apex Court, the purpose is to tide over the immediate difficulties. We are therefore of the view that petitioner has not made out any ground for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.
4. Writ Petition therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.