Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jiwan Lata And Ors. vs Kurukshetra University And Anr. on 26 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)2PLR358
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Mohinder Pal
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 1.3.2007, Annexure P-6, whereby claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma, was declined.
2. Ishwar Chand Sharma was employed in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') as Ground Man. He was promoted as Clerk on 12.1.1994. He died on 26.1.2006 leaving behind his wife, petitioner No. 1, five daughters and one son. One daughter and the son are unmarried.
3. Petitioner No. 1, wife of Ishwar Chand Sharma, submitted an application on 2.2.2005 for appointment of petitioner No. 2, her son, on compassionate ground. On 16.11.2005, a communication was addressed to petitioner No. 2 that since he has not attained the age of 18 years for first entry in the service, therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment can't be considered and that his request may be considered on his attaining the age of 18 years within three years of the date of the death of Ishwar Chand Sharma. Petitioner No. 2 was to complete the age of 18 years on 11.2.2007. The claim for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground was declined vide communication dated 1.3.2007, Annexure P-6, on the ground that under the revised Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the '2006 Rules'), only financial assistance is permissible. It is the said communication which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
4. In reply, it has been pointed out that in terms of the Rules framed by the State Government, as has been adopted by the University from time to time, the petitioner No. 2 was not in the prescribed age limit of 18-50 years in terms of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the '2003 Rules'). But in the meantime, the exgratia Rules were revised which were adopted by the University on 31.8.2006. As per the revised Rules, all the pending cases are to be governed by the 2006 Rules alone, therefore, the action of the respondent-University is in tune with the Rules.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported as "Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2007(1) R.S.J. 235" to contend that the Rules applicable on the date of death, would be applicable. However, operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.7.2007 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18972 of 2006.
6. In Civil Writ Petition No. 19562 of 2006, Murti Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. the State Government was asked to clarify the stand of the State in respect of the word 'Pending Cases' in Rule 19(2) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules!, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the '2005 Rules') and such words appearing in Rules 6 & 8 of 2006 Rules. It was also sought to be clarified as to whether the Rules, as exist on the date of death of an employee, would be applicable or not. In the aforesaid case, an affidavit of Mr. M.R. Anand, IAS, Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, General Administration Department, Chandigarh, has been filed pointing out that all the pending cases would be dealt with keeping in view the provisions of the Rules existing at the time of pendency of the cases and not at the time of death of the employee.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The State Government has trained the 2003 Rules, 2005 Rules and 2006 Rules in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India providing appointment of compassionate ground. Therefore, the appointment on compassionate ground can be sought only in accordance with the Rules framed from time to time. The appointment on compassionate ground is a concession granted to the family of the deceased Government employee to meet out immediate financial distress. It is well settled that it is not a source of employment. The purpose of granting compassionate appointment is not the replacement for the deceased employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi , has held that the public employment is considered to be a wealth and cannot be given on descent. It was held to the following effect:
XXX XXX XXX
5. An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of employees of the State is governed by the rules framed under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the State is obliged to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court, however, while laying emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated while rendering services in the police department.
6. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.
XXX XXX XXX
8. In "State Bank of India and Anr. v. Somvir Singh ", the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate ground would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of employed youths. It proceeded to hold that:
xxx xxx xxx
10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim commassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.
xxx xxx xxx
9. In the present case, on the date of death of Ishwar Chand Sharma, 2003 Rules were in force. Such Rules contemplate that an application for appointment on compassionate ground could be made within 3 years and the list for eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground was to be maintained. Such list was to remain valid for a period of 3 years. It is also contemplated in 2003 Rules that there could not be any relaxation of age. Though, on the date an application was submitted for appointment on compassionate ground, petitioner No. 2 was minor, but could attain the age of 18 years within 3 years of the date of death of his father Ishwar Chand Sharma. But before the petitioner No. 2 could become eligible under 2003 Rules and becomes eligible for appointment, such 2003 Rules were substituted. On the date when the petitioner No. 1 become eligible for appointment, the 2006 Rules were in force. As per the 2006 Rules, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given. Only financial assistance is contemplated.
10. In view of the above, the communication addressed to the petitioner that he can submit for the grant of financial assistance under 2006 Rules, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed.