Aiswarya Jose vs Deleted As Per Order Dated 12.3.2020 & Others

K. Haripal, Member J

Applicant is aggrieved by Annexures A-6 and A-8 orders passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting her application for compassionate appointment. She seeks to set aside Annexures A-6 and A-8 communications dated 16.5.2019 and 18.6.2019 and a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint her in the service of the Accountant General under Compassionate Appointment Scheme.

The applicant is the daughter of Shri.P.P.Jose who was Senior Accountant in the office of the 2nd respondent. He passed away on 10.8.2018. At that time, he had put in 34 years, 11 months and 12 days service and was aged 58 years, had two more years service left. He died of liver cancer, after prolonged treatment. The applicant, a graduate, while doing her LLB, submitted Annexure A-3 application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by Annexure A-6 order dated 16.5.2019. Then her mother gave Annexure A-7 representation, which has been rejected by Annexure A-8.

According to the applicant, her father late P.P Jose was the sole breadwinner of the family. Even though certain amounts like DCRG were paid to the family, those amounts were hardly sufficient to pay off the liabilities incurred for the prolonged treatment of the father. The wife, i.e. the mother of the applicant, two children and his parents were being looked after with the income of the deceased, after his death, the family has become destitute. The elder brother of the applicant is temporarily employed with only an income of Rs.10,000/- and on that ground alone, the application has been rejected, which is illegal.

The stand of the respondents that the family is financially well placed is false and incorrect. The income of the brother, which is not regular and the family pension granted to the mother are not sufficient to maintain the family and therefore, she has sought the above stated reliefs.

The respondents filed reply statement controverting the contentions of the applicant. According to them, the Original Application is not maintainable, Annexures A-6 and A-8 were passed after considering various aspects in proper perspective. While selecting the candidates under the compassionate appointment scheme, authorities are required to make selection keeping in view the economic status of the family and the benefits received by the legal heirs. Only those who need the reliefs most who are found in extremely indigent and straitened circumstances are selected for compassionate appointment. Benefit under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme cannot be granted as a matter of course. The scheme followed by the respondents do not permit the applicant to be considered for appointment. Such an appointment cannot be claimed as of right nor a dependent becomes automatically entitled, rather it depends on various other circumstances like eligibility and financial condition of the family etc.

The father of the applicant had died on 10.8.2018. The Annexure A-3 application for compassionate appointment was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee which considered the same; after considering various aspects including the report of the Welfare Officer, the application was rejected. After the death of the father, the family was given a total sum of Rs20,87,382/- as retiral benefits including DCRG of Rs.20 lakhs and CGEGIS of Rs.87,382/-. Moreover, an amount of Rs.10,000 was also granted to the family as relief from the Benevolent Fund. The contention that the entire amount was spent for defraying the liabilities is not supported by documentary evidence. The family also owns a double storied terraced building with 1500 sq.ft in 8 cents of land. The elder brother is employed and earns a monthly income of Rs.12000/-. The family pension of Rs.37150/- along with Dearness Relief of Rs.4450 is being paid. In these circumstances, the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.

I heard Shri.P.Mohandas, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri.Vineeth Komalachandran representing the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it is illegal to reject the application for compassionate appointment merely on the ground that her brother is employed. It is a slip-shod ground for rejecting an application for compassionate appointment. The father of the applicant had been undergoing treatment for liver cancer for about 8 years and large sums of money were spent by the family for meeting the treatment expenses. The retiral benefits paid after his death were completely wiped off to defray the liabilities incurred. Even now, such liabilities are outstanding. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has now completed Law degree and enrolled as a Lawyer and grant of employment assistance on compassionate ground is an absolute necessity for the family.

On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the case of the applicant was meticulously considered by the Committee which came to the conclusion that this is not a fit case for granting such benefits. Referring to Annexure A-9, the learned counsel pointed out that after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the case of the petitioner in O.P(CAT) 862/2013 was again considered and rejected by the Committee. That order was called in question before this Tribunal in O.A 731/2019. Producing a copy of the order in O.A 731/2019 dated 28th March 2023, learned Standing Counsel pointed out that her claim was again rejected, so far, that order has not been challenged before the High Court. Relying on various decisions, including the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Nitin in Civil Appeal No.5111/2022 dated 3rd August 2022, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that Annexure A-9 order was passed banking on Canara Bank and Another v. M.Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412]. This has been found not good law in Nitin's case quoted supra. Similarly Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others [(2005) 10 SCC 219] relied on in Annexure A-9 also has not been followed. In order to support the contention, the learned Standing Counsel has produced copy of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]. The learned counsel also relied on various other authorities including judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.16590 of 2018 dated 31.10.2022, P.Paulraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The applicant is the daughter of Shri P.P.Jose who passed away on 10.8.2018. He was suffering from liver cancer; it appears that he had undergone prolonged treatment. Even though the applicant wanted to say that the entire family consisting of widow and two children and his parents were depending on his income, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, in Annexure A-3 the applicant has no case that the parents were depending on the income of Shri.Jose or that the parents did not have independent source of income or other children to depend upon. Whatever it may be, it is very clear that Annexure A-6 and A-8 were passed after considering the case of the applicant by the Committee constituted for the purpose, based on the report of the Welfare Officer and other relevant aspects guiding the subject.

It is the settled proposition of law that compassionate ground appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course. It is an exception to the general rules of recruitment. Therefore, when an application for compassionate appointment is filed, the applicant has to make out that he or she falls within the exception. The ambit and purport of compassionate appointment scheme can be understood from the following words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana in [(1994) 4SCC 138]:

“.................... The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. …. ”

The learned counsel, relying on Annexure A9, submitted that the retirement benefits including pension or DCRG granted to the family cannot be taken as a ground to reject the Application. As noticed earlier, Annexure A-9 order has been rendered relying on the decisions in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others and Canara Bank and Another v. M.Mahesh Kumar quoted supra. In Canara Bank, it was held that grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel, the Supreme Court has held that Canara Bank is not an authority for the proposition that financial criteria cannot be the ground for rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment. Similarly in Shashi Kumar also, the decision in Govind Prakash Verma has not been followed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the proposition that, retirement benefits or post death payments made to the family of the deceased cannot be taken while considering an application for compassionate appointment, does not hold good any more.

It has also become the settled proposition that there is no vested right to compassionate appointment, but only an entitlement to be considered in accordance with the prevailing scheme or the rules framed by the employer where such a scheme exists. That means, the compassionate appointment scheme is an exception to the general rules of recruitment followed by principles of reservation etc. When a claim for compassionate appointment is put forth, the look out of the Court is whether such a scheme is in vogue and whether the respondents have considered the application in terms of the scheme. Here, the applicant has no case that such a scheme is not prevailing or that the respondents have not followed the scheme. As noticed earlier, the special committee dealing with compassionate appointment had considered the case of the applicant basing on the report given by the Welfare Officer and also various other aspects, following the prevailing scheme.

It has come out that the elder brother of the applicant Mr.Arun Jose is a person possessing B Tech, M.B.A qualifications and is working. According to them, he is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.12000/-. Apart from the same, the mother of the applicant is being paid a monthly pension of Rs.37,150/- with dearness relief, which varies from time to time. The family was also given a total amount of Rs.20,87,382. Even though the applicant wanted to say that entire amount was used for repaying the debts incurred for the treatment of the father, satisfactory materials are not forthcoming.

It has also come out that the family owns 8 cents of land and a two storied terraced building measuring 1500 sq. ft.

It is also a matter of common knowledge that an application for compassionate appointment is considered only against 5% of vacancies arising in an year in Group C and Group D categories. In other words, number of vacancies against such a scheme is negligible. Therefore, it is the task of the committee to find out the most appropriate and deserving person to be appointed. That was how, they take up the criteria of income slab etc for eliminating the claims of better placed persons.

Compassionate appointment is a need base concept. Number of vacancies are limited and the number of applicants are relatively high, so that the comparative merit of the candidates will have to be weighed taking into account the family condition, the financial set up etc. The fact that the mother of the applicant is being paid an amount of Rs.37,150/-with dearness relief as monthly pension is a valid reason to reject the case of the applicant. Similarly, the brother of the applicant is also employed and having regard to the quantum of amount paid post-death of the Government servant, it cannot be thought that the family is in penurious, indigent condition. The Tribunal is not persuaded to think that employment assistance is warranted to tide over the crisis created consequent to the sudden demise of the father. Now the applicant has become a lawyer; weighing all the matters in correct perspective, the respondents cannot be found fault for rejecting the claim of the applicant.

After evaluating the circumstances, I do not find valid reasons to interfere with Annexures A-6 and A-8 orders passed by the respondents. The Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.

(Dated this the 8th day of September, 2023)