Bijay Kumar Singh vs The Union of India

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has approached this Court again with a prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father, namely, Late Ramu Lal died on 6th May, 2000, while working as a Peon in harness under the Respondent-National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, Hatia, Ranchi.

His earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2006 was disposed of vide Annexure-1 with a direction to the respondent to consider his case along with others and pass appropriate order within stipulated time.

After the contempt petition preferred by him was dropped, on the show cause filed by opposite parties the petitioner has preferred this writ application once again stating that under Right to Information Act, vide Annexure-7/1, it was stated that no appointments have been made to the dependent after 1st January, 2006 on compassionate ground, which is contrary to what was submitted before this Court when the contempt petition was being pursued. Apart from that, the petitioner by way of an information under R.T.I. obtained through letter dated 11th November, 2008, Annexure-1 has stated that amongst the list of 15 such applicants waiting for compassionate appointment the claim of the petitioner appears at serial No. 7 and he is the lone person, who is entitled for appointment to Grade ''C'' post, of which there is a vacancy.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-Institute, in their counter affidavit, has submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment after 13 years of the death of the employee in harness is otherwise also not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court such as in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . Apart from that, the petitioner''s family has survived for 13 years and all death- cum- retiral benefits were paid to the dependent of the deceased as per the submission made at para 8 of the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is engaged on contractual basis with the Institute since 2003 and has been able to survive despite the death of bread earner. Therefore, at this stage the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted. According to them, amongst the list of 18 such applicants the petitioner is at serial No. 7, while at the most calculating 5% of the total vacancies in Group-C which can be earmarked for compassionate appointment, only one post has been kept out of the advertisement issued in 2013 for appointment to such posts, to which the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Therefore, his plea should be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is true that the petitioner''s father died in May, 2000 itself and the claim for compassionate appointment is grossly belated on that account, as it is now 14 years from the death of the employee in question. Apart from that, though the information furnished under R.T.I. to the petitioner through letter dated 11th November, 2008 shows that there were no vacancies existing in C & D Grade, the claim of the petitioner that he is only person otherwise qualified to be appointed on Class-C post available for compassionate appointment, does not appear to be justified as from the chart enclosed by him in the rejoinder, at least 4 other applicants appear to have qualification of Intermediate in Arts as well. The petitioner therefore is not justified in saying that he is the first person whose case can be considered for such compassionate appointment. Moreover, in a matter relating to compassionate appointment when the dependent of the deceased appear to have survived for 13 years and the petitioner himself is engaged on contractual remuneration with the respondent, it cannot be said that he has been rendered destitute on the death of sole bread earner.

The claim of compassionate appointment, otherwise also can not as a matter of right be made to any particular post. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.