Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Respondents have opposed this O.A. They have submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right. Since there were large number of applications, compassionate appointment cannot be given to all the applicants and it is only the most deserving candidates, who alone can be given the same, that too subject to availability of vacancy. They have also stated that in L.I.C. v. Asha Ram Chandra Ambedkar and Ors. JT 1994 (2) SC 83, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Courts and Tribunal cannot give directions for appointment on compassionate grounds but can only direct to consider the case for such appointment. The department has reconsidered the case not once or twice but thrice, but since there were more deserving cases and applicant had not been found in penurious condition, his request had rightly been rejected by the competent authority.

6. The ceiling of 5% vacancies was fixed vide OM dated 26.09.1995. The Department had taken up the matter with the Government of India either to grant relaxation / increase in the percentage or to allow the Govt. to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Government of India directed that appointment should be done in compliance with OM dated 26.09.1995, which restricts the appointments to 5% of direct recruitment in Group 'C' and 'D' posts only. They have also explained that in the initial list of 162 cases recommended for appointment to the post of Gr. IV DASS/LDC, applicant's name figured at serial No. 81 whereas only three candidates could be given appointment on compassionate ground that too in ex-cadre posts as per their suitability according to educational qualifications etc. etc. None of the other persons from the said list could be given compassionate appointment. They have also submitted that this list was placed before the Hon'ble High Court, as one of the persons, viz. Shri Raj Kumar Lohmorh had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1594 of 2003, who was at serial No. 65 of the said list, whereas the applicant's name was at serial No. 81. The petitioner therein had also claimed that he be given compassionate appointment, but after perusing the records, stand of the respondents was upheld. It was specifically mentioned in the said judgment that names of 162 persons who were recommended in the year 1998 could not be accommodated due to non-availability of vacancies and only 3 candidates could be given compassionate appointment. The petitioner therein was only one of those 159 left over candidates recommended for appointment in 1998. It was also noted in the judgment that Government of NCT of Delhi sought relaxation for increasing the percentage of compassionate appointment to Government of India, but it did not accede to their request. It was in those circumstances, the competent authority took a view that genuine and deserving cases should be given compassionate appointment by examining the cases afresh. After noticing this, the Hon'ble High Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be permitted to turn into a scheme to gain Government job to those who may have lost a family member. It was intended to provide immediate succor to a family, which was in a state of penury and needed immediate relief. Accordingly, Respondents applied following criteria:

7. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings.

8. It would be pertinent to mention here that Shri Raj Kumar Lohmorh was at serial No. 65 in the first list recommended in the year 1998 while applicant was at serial No. 81. I have also seen the list produced by the respondents. If Hon'ble High Court declined to interfere in the case of a person who was at serial No. 65, I do not see how applicant's case can be interfered with, when he was still much lower i.e. at serial No. 81 of the said list. It goes without saying that there were 78 persons above him who were not given compassionate appointment, even though they were also recommended in the said list. If none of those persons have been given compassionate appointment, applicant cannot have a better right than those persons to claim that he should be given compassionate appointment by jumping the line simply because he was recommended by the first Screening Committee. It goes without saying that the law on compassionate appointment has been well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been repeatedly held that compassionate appointment can neither be sought as a matter of right nor as a line of succession after the father or mother dies while in service. It has also been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as an easy mode to gain entry into Government service de hors recruitment rules. This is only by way of an exception to the general rule compassionate appointment can be given only to such of the persons who are most deserving and are in such penurious condition that they cannot even survive unless they are given immediate assistance by the Department. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointment cannot be made as an easy step for gaining entry into Government service and only the most deserving persons are to be given compassionate appointment. In the process, naturally, those who are less deserving, get eliminated and they cannot make any grievance about it.

11. In fact, it is not even disputed by the applicant that all the dependants of the deceased are adult, family is having its own house apart from getting family pension of Rs. 2500/- + DA besides the terminal benefits paid to the tune of Rs. 2,69,480/-. From the records, it is also seen that the elder brother was already gainfully employed though he was living separately. Therefore, by looking into these facts, respondents came to the conclusion that this is not a case, which deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. I have already seen the records produced by the respondents and find that the case of applicant had been duly considered by the respondents and the same has been rejected on valid grounds as mentioned in para supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that so long as the case has been considered by the authorities and rejected by returning a finding that this is not a fit case for grant of compassionate appointment, courts cannot sit in appeal over such orders and give directions that a person should still be given compassionate appointment. The only direction that can be given is to reconsider the case, but since respondents have already reconsidered the case of the applicant on number of occasions, therefore, this direction also cannot be given now. I am supported in taking this view by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC v. Asha Ram Chandra Ambedkar and Ors. reported in J.T. 1994 (2) SC 83.