Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. According to the respondents, on receipt of the application for compassionate appointment, the Welfare Officer of the respondents had conducted an enquiry regarding the financial position of the family. Thereafter, the Departmental Screening Committee considered all the aspects and rejected the claim since the family of Radhamani had received terminal benefits beyond Rs.14 lakhs. The report submitted by the Welfare Officer dated 13.08.2010 indicate that Radhamani is survived by her husband Sri.G. Appan, two daughters Smt.Arya R aged 24 years and the applicant aged 20 years. At the time of death of the mother, the elder daughter was unmarried and employed in a scheduled bank. Sri.Appan is a practising lawyer. The applicant was a student of LLB. The family was granted family pension of Rs.14,045/- with dearness reliefs besides terminal benefits of Rs.14,17,720/- and GPF balance of Rs.10,83,162/- were disbursed to them. They owned a building in 8 cents of land. The house was built by availing House Building Advance from the department, but at the time of death of the mother no liabilities were outstanding under the HBA. The husband had pledged ornaments for Rs.45,000/- to meet the funeral expenses. They had a chitty transaction of Rs.15 lakhs with the KSFE. However, the Screening Committee has observed that the chitty transaction for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs cannot be treated as a liability as in the case of bank loan. Even though she was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the Screening Committee had considered all aspects as revealed through records including terminal benefits, the assets and liabilities and monthly income of the family, number of earning members, number of dependents, need and status of the family, etc. If the applicant had sought for personal hearing, that would have been allowed. Screening Committee had considered all aspects and found the applicant not eligible to be considered under the compassionate appointment scheme. Various authorities have also been cited in the reply supporting the contentions.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents said that on the death of the mother, who was holding Group-B non-gazetted post, the family received more than Rs.25 lakhs as retiral benefits. Moreover, the husband is drawing monthly family pension, more than Rs.41,000/-. The report of the Welfare Officer indicated that the family owns a building in 8 cents of land, that they have no liabilities outstanding under the HBA scheme. Regarding the chitty transaction with KSFE, amount more than Rs.15 lakhs was pending, but that is not a liability, it has to be treated as an investment. The decisions in Govind Prakash Verma and Mahesh Kumar, quoted supra, stand overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Nitin in Civil Appeal No.5111 of 2022, dated 03.8.2022. The counsel also relied on the decisions reported in State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653], Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami and another [(2012) 11 SCC 307] and Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others v. T. Padmakumari Amma [2007(1)KHC376]. According to the learned counsel, Shashank Goswami, quoted supra, is apt to the facts of this case. Now, by the revised guidelines issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a family member of a Group-B employee who got more than Rs.14 lakhs as retiral benefits is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. According to him, the case of the applicant was considered in the light of the office memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training).

19. As indicated earlier, employment assistance is a need based concept and it cannot be sought as a matter of right. If there are numerous applicants under the scheme, the respondents will have to weigh the relative merits. Only the most deserving person who is in worst financial condition can be appointed under the scheme. Such an application should be considered objectively.

20. Two more aspects deserve consideration. Firstly, it was asserted by the applicant that loan availed by the deceased for the construction of the residential building is yet to be cleared. But the respondents have stated in clear terms that no liabilities were outstanding under the HBA, that no liabilities had been adjusted from the benefits of the late officer. The burden of proof is on the party who asserts these facts. Here not even a rejoinder was filed by the applicant.