Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajeet Meena vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2011
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6069/2011 Ajeet Meena Versus UOI & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06/05/2011 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.KOTHARI Mr. Lokesh Sharma, for the appellant ***
The petitioner has challenged Order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the CAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which OA No.155/2009 has been dismissed. The Petitioner sought the relief of appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, late Shri Aniruddh Meena, who died while he was employed in Bandikui RS Post Office as Postman and Mail Carrier on 14.9.1998. Soon after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment in Group-D on compassionate ground vide application dated 6.11.1998, but as he was only eleven and a half years of age, (his date of birth being 1.3.1987), he was advised to apply after becoming major. On attaining adulthood, the petitioner again submitted an application dated 31.3.2005 for appointment which was considered by the Circle Selection Committee. He was not found eligible for appointment as the Committee, after objective assessment of the financial condition of the family, did not find the family in indigent condition. The decision was communicated to him by registered letter on 15.1.2007. After a silence of about 2 years, the petitioner sent a notice of demand dated 26.2.2009. When nothing was done, he filed OA and, on its dismissal, this Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first application could not be accepted as he was minor, and the second application has been rejected without any cogent reason while the petitioner was fully entitled for appointment as his father expired in employment and no one of his family was employed.
On rejection of second application, vide Order dated 15.1.2007, the petitioner kept silent. He did not even challenge that Order while filing OA. In the circumstances, it was contended by the Respondents before CAT, that the application is barred by limitation as per provision of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
We have considered the above submissions and gone through the record.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.9.2010 reveals that CSC considered the application of the petitioner carefully and on the basis of the facts came to the conclusion that the family was not in need of mitigating the hardship caused to the family on account of the unexpected death of Shri Aniruddh Meena. The family of the petitioner consisted of his mother and two sisters. Both the sisters and the petitioner himself are already married and his mother is getting family pension amounting to Rs. 1640/- plus DR per month. A terminal benefit of Rs. 94,941/- has already been paid. The family owns a house and 1.5 bigha of agricultural land.
Before discussing facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary to mention that the mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against, in respect of any employment or office under the State. However, having regard to the uncertainties and exigencies of life, an exception to the aforesaid general rule was carved out for making compassionate appointment to tide over the hardship caused to the family of a deceased employee. The object of such appointments has engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court and principles of law have been laid down in a number of cases beginning with Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not a method of recruitment but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased from destitution. It has been constantly held that such an appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of long period as the very purpose of providing immediate help in hardship and distress is frustrated.
When the facts of this case are examined in the light of aforesaid object, it is found that the father of the petitioner expired on 14.09.1998 and when the petitioner submitted application dated 06.11.1998 for appointment, it was found that he could not be considered for employment till he attains the age of maturity. The petitioner was advised to apply after attaining majority. If the family of the petitioner was in urgent need any other member of his family including his mother could have submitted application for such an appointment but no such application was submitted. The petitioner submitted second application dated 31.03.2005 which was duly processed. His case was considered by the Circle Selection Committee and it observed as below:
(i) The ex-official expired on 14.09.1998.
(ii) As per synopsis, the ex-official has left behind him widow, one married son and two married daughters.
(iii) As per educational qualilfication the applicant was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Gr.D TC.
(iv) The family is getting family pension amounting to Rs.1640/- + D.R. per month.
(v) The family has received terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.91,941/-
(vi) In assets, the family has own house to live in.
(vii) The case is more than 5 years old.
(viii) The family has landed property 1.5 Bigha land.
and the petitioner was not found eligible for appointment. The petitioner was informed about the decision vide letter dated 15.01.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner after a silence of over two years gave notice of demand on 26.02.2009. When appointment was not offered, he approached CAT and on dismissal of O.A. has filed this writ petition. The case of the petitioner was considered in detail. Admittedly, the family of the petitioner consisted of his mother and two sisters. Both the sisters and petitioner himself are married. His mother is getting family pension amounting to Rs.1640/- + DR per month. Terminal benefit of Rs.94,941/- was also paid to her. The family owns a house and 1.5 Bigha agriculural land. It appears that the family of the petitioner was not in need of financial aid for overcoming hardship due to unexpected death of his father. Thus, the rejection of his application cannot be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
There is another aspect of the matter. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to a person, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 15.01.2007 on getting it. He also did not challenge the same in O.A. filed by him. Simply giving of notice for demand of justice dated 26.02.2009 will not furnish a fresh cause of action to him as it accrued to him on rejection of his application on 15.01.2007. The law is well settled that where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application can stop it.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 SC 2782 observed that when the petitioner submitted first application on 02.06.1988 he being minor was not eligible for appointment. It has also held that there could not be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by this judgment.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of J & K Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir [2006 SCC (L&S) 1195] has held as under:
11......... Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors 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 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.
For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
[S.S.KOTHARI], J. [ARUN MISHRA],CJ. FRBOHRA6069DBCW2011 06-05.do