Champaklal Jethalal Parmar vs Government of India and Another

Bhagwati Prasad, J.—This Special Civil Application is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment & order passed by Hon''ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No. 792 of 2001 dated 16/7/2002.

The case of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal (''CAT'' for brevity) was that his father died in harness while working in Group D post in November 1996 and even though his family was living in an indigent condition the respondents rejected his claim vide letter dated 19/2/1999. Petitioner also stated in his application that his elder brother is living separately. The petitioner is unemployed and he has to look after his wife and one son, younger brother and mother. This application is opposed by the respondents and have submitted that repeatedly unsuccessful representations made by the petitioner cannot extend the limitation and the application therefore deserved to be rejected on the ground of limitation alone. On merits also respondents have contested the application that on enquiry it was revealed that the eldest son is a regular Group D employee earning Rs. 5000/- per month. Second son is getting Rs. 800/- as a labourer and present petitioner is also earning by doing labour work, therefore the collective income with pension of widow makes that the family is not in an indigent condition.

After hearing the parties the Tribunal rejected the application not only on the ground of delay but on merits also. It is observed in the order that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right nor the Tribunal can direct the authorities to give appointment on compassionate ground to an individual. The Tribunal has observed in the order that the authorities have considered case of the applicant and have come to the conclusion on the basis of the enquiry that the family is not in an indigent condition therefore by way of judicial review cannot be imposed Tribunal''s opinion in place of that of the authorities. Further the very fact that the applicant could pull on from 1996 to 2001 itself shows the family is not in indigent condition and delay in such matters is right to be an important factor. The Tribunal also observed that the Apex Court has repeatedly stated that the compassionate appointment is not a method of recruitment but is only a facility to be provided in exceptional cases to insinuate the genuine hardship of the family of deceased. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the application of the applicant/ petitioner herein vide decision dated 16/7/2002. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner herein preferred above Special Civil Application for quashing & setting aside the said order, with a further direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh in the light of the fact that terminal benefits are not to be counted while dealing with the issue of compassionate appointment.

Heard learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents. The facts as stated herein above, and repeated in the petition are that father of the petitioner was serving as Peon in RMS Office at Surendranagar, who died in harness on 11/1/1996. Petitioner made representation to National Union of RMS to provide compassionate appointment which came to be turned down vide reply dated 19/2/1999. Thereafter various correspondences took place and ultimately vide communication dated 16/12/1999 his request for compassionate appointment was turned down, which ultimately became cause for preferring O.A. No. 792 of 2001 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide reasoned order dated 16/7/2002 dismissed the application against which present petition is preferred.

In fact petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Department vide Annexure-D to the petition produced at page 17 and 3 grounds were given for rejection which reads as under:

There is one earning member in the family.

Good terminal benefits.

Substantial monthly pension of Rs. 1825/-

Against this rejection the petitioner in 1999 preferred Original Application before the Tribunal in the year 2001. The Tribunal has considered the case and have rejected the application on the question of delay because one year limitation was there and the application made was beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal has also considered the question on merits and has found that there are sufficient means available with the petitioner to sustain itself and has observed that if the petitioner could sustain during period 1996 to 2001 when he approached the Tribunal, then no question for compassionate appointment is made out. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the contention of indigence is not a condition precedent. In the instant case sufficient help was available to the family.

Assailing the decision of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the petitioner before us submitted that Clause 10- of the Scheme has not been adhered to. Clause 10 of the Scheme For Compassionate Appointment, 1998 reads as under:

WHERE THERE IS AN EARNING MEMBER

(a) In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department/ Ministry concerned who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the Government servant, income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the Government servant and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family.

(b) In cases where any member of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is already in employment and is not supporting the other members of the family of the Government servant, extreme caution has to be observed in ascertaining the economic distress of the members of the family of the Government servant so that the facility of appointment on compassionate ground is not circumvented and misused by putting forward the ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have not examined the liabilities of the family before rejecting the claim for compassionate ground. That the elder brother who was earning Rs. 5000/- per month was living separately and another brother was only earning Rs. 800/-, the retiral benefits was beyond Rs. One lakh only and pension was less than Rs. 2000/- therefore liability should have been gone into and the question should have been examined in right earnest.

We have given our thought to the facts & circumstances of the case. Perused the order passed by the department in rejecting petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment, and the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal and also the relevant rules governing the issue. Petitioner''s elder brother is already serving in the same department with a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month is sufficient assurance to the family that one member in the family is serving in the department who can support the family. As has been held by respondents in their letter at Annexure-D dated 16/12/1999 the reasons whereof is quoted herein above, we find that there are sufficient reasons to negate the plea of the petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is very clear on the point that it is not as a law that compassionate appointment is to be given, but it is to be weighed by whether the family can sustain its own or not. The family has been sustaining so far. It cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is fulfilled by the petitioner. His claim before the Tribunal was belated and the Tribunal was right in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter the rejection of petitioner''s application by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. We do not find any force in the petition, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.