Surender Kumar vs Delhi Jail Board Management on 12 March, 2009
In Ganesh Goel vs
Secretary DDA ( supra), it was held that only right which
exists in favour of family members of the deceased is a
right to be considered for compassionate employment and
not a right to be appointed in substitution of deceased
employee. In the present case, workman had given
representation which was considered by the management,
therefore, it can not be said that claim of the applicant has
not been considered by the management. Deceased
workman died on 3.3.1983. However, at that time present
workman was 2-3 years of age. He acquired age of 18
years on 13.4.1999. Thereafter, he gave representation
13
and called for interview. His right was considered in
accordance with police of the management. On the
parameters prescribed in the policy, present applicant was
not found entitled to be offered employment on
compassionate ground. It appears that circumstances
which weighed with management were that the family of
the deceased had sustained itself for 15 years, certainly it
did not require immediate help of the management to
support it. These circumstances also rule out that family of
the deceased was in immediate distress of penuary or
required immediate attention of the management. Only
right vested in LRS of the deceased within the parameters
of the scheme framed by the management was to be
considered if employment on compassionate ground.
Applicant was considered and he was not found entitled to
be appointed on compassionate ground, therefore, he can
not enforce such rights through the instrumentality of this
tribunal. Even a decision of the management can not be
subject matter of the judicial review by this tribunal. In view
of above authorities I hold that demand of the applicant for
appointment on compassionate ground on suitable post
was not justified and legal and as such he is not entitled to
any relief. This issue is accordingly decided.