Charanjit Kaur vs Union Of India

The  present  Original  Application  (O.A.),  has  been  filed  by applicant Charanjit Kaur seeking compassionate appointment in place of her deceased mother Smt. Gulab Kaur, who died while in service.

The facts of the case are largely not in dispute. The mother of the applicant late Smt. Gulab Kaur was working as Senior Cleaner in Northern Railway and passed away on 21.5.2010 while in service. She left behind 2 married sons and 3 married daughters. The applicant, after getting no objection from her brothers and sisters, applied for compassionate appointment on the grounds that she alongwith her minor children, was living with her mother and was dependent upon her. The department, however, found her middle class certificate fake and also objected that the applicant had not obtained legal divorce from her husband till death on 21. 5.2010 and as such, was not a family member of the deceased government servant. The applicant obtained formal divorce from her husband from the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure A-3) . She also obtained a secondary school certificate dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure A-2). However, the respondent department rejected her claim vide order dated 16.2.2015 (Annexure A-4) stating that as per inquiry conducted, she was not dependent on her mother at the time of her death. The applicant filed O.A. No. 060/1176/2015 in this Tribunal which was decided on 17.11.2016 (Annexure A-5) directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment keeping in view her family circumstances and financial situation. Accordingly, a detailed order has been passed by the department dated 11.8.2017 (Annexure A-6) again rejecting the claim of the applicant. This order is under challenge in this O.A.

The applicant has pleaded that she got customary divorce from her husband way back in 2007. Since then she alongwith her minor children, was living with her late mother Smt. Gulab Kaur and was totally dependent upon her. She submitted no objection certificate from her siblings and also requisite educational qualification documents and as such she is entitled for compassionate appointment. She submitted secondary school certificate dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure A-2). She has no independent source of income and as such, she is entitled for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the applicant also pleaded that vide impugned order, the department has not only reiterated old grounds, but has also added new grounds for rejection of her claim.

The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the pleas of the applicant. He stated that late Smt. Gulab Kaur was the third wife and was herself appointed on compassionate ground on 21. 10.2000 after demise of her husband, keeping in view the hardship. Further, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed again by another family member by way of inheritance in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Chattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in 2010 (1) 22 RSJ. He further argued that when Smt. Gulab Kaur passed away in 2010, the applicant was still not divorced from her husband and as such, she was not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further pointed out that even the petition for divorce was filed by the applicant on 16.10.2010 that is after the death of Smt. Gulab Kaur which took place on 21.5.2010. The learned counsel further argued that the original certificate of middle class produced by the applicant was found to be fake and the later secondary school certificate of October 2012 (Annexure A-2) is from National Institute of Open Schooling which is not a recognized Board. Further, this certificate indicates the address as DAV School, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh whereas the applicant is claiming to be residing with her mother. Moreover, here father's name is indicated as Leelu Ram whereas husband of Gulab Kaur was Leelu Singh. This is so reflected even in the divorce petition. Over and above all this, the learned counsel for respondents argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, rather it is a concession. Besides, the case is also barred by limitation. In view of all above, the respondents concluded that no case for compassionate appointment is made out by the applicant.

We have heard the learned counsels for the opposing parties, carefully gone though the pleadings and have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

We notice that the applicant had earlier filed O.A. for the very same relief. This Tribunal had directed the respondents 'to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds keeping in view her family circumstances and financial situation subject to her eligibility regarding educational qualification being established and any other aspects that are to be taken into account while considering claims for appointment on compassionate grounds.' We note that the only direction was to reconsider the case keeping in view all relevant factors.

Accordingly, the respondent department has reconsidered the claim of the applicant de novo and given a detailed speaking order dated 11.8.2017 which is under challenge in the present O.A. As per the orders, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that all the children of late Smt. Gulab Kaur - two sons and three daughters - left behind at the time of death were married. The applicant may be residing with her mother as claimed by her, but she did not produce any certificate to prove that she was a family member of the deceased. Panchyat Talaknama was submitted by her only on 19.7.2010 - that is after the death when she came to know that married daughters are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Even the suit for divorce was filed only on 16.10.2010 - that is much after the death of her mother. The divorce was finally decreed on 23.8.2011, but this was on ex-parte basis as her husband did not contest the case.

Most importantly the certificate of 8th class submitted by the applicant was found to be forged. Instead of proving genuineness of the certificate she had submitted, she chose to produce another certificate of 10th class pass from another Institute. This certificate dated 14.12.2012 contains inconsistencies as brought out by the respondent department. The residential address given in this certificate is of Madhya Pradesh whereas the applicant claims to be residing with her mother for over 10 years and is claiming to be solely dependent on her at that time. On being questioned as to why this address was given, the counsel for the applicant stated that this was only for the examination period. On being further questioned as to why centre in Madhya Pradesh was chosen, the counsel for the applicant had no answer. When questioned as to why instead trying to prove the genuineness of the 8th class certificate furnished by them, they chose to give another certificate from another Board, the counsel for the applicant again had no answer. In view of the earlier certificate having been found forged and the applicant making no efforts to prove its genuineness, we feel that in view of clear discrepancies in the certificate, its genuineness cannot be accepted on face value.

The applicant has claimed that the Panchyat Talaknama was dated 15.3.2007 and she was residing separately since February 2007. However, the fact is that legally Panchyat Talaknama has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. The decree for divorce was much after the death and even the civil suit for divorce was filed by her only after the death of her mother.

In any case, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only to overcome the immediate distress to the family of the government servant immediately after his/her death. In this case, death of Smt. Gulab Kaur occurred in 2010. Smt. Gulab Kaur herself was a compassionate appointee. That the applicant was a family member at the time of death has not been established. Even document for her educational qualification submitted by her was found to be forged at one time and the later one also contains number of inconsistencies.

In view of all above, we feel that the applicant has not been able to establish her claim for compassionate appointment. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Therefore, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.