Chaturbhuj Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:-

(I) For quashing of the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 17.05.2018, as contained in memo No. 349 dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure-12), by which the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that he has filed the application for compassionate appointment after 13 years of death of his father.

(II) For quashing the letter dated 11.11.2017 (Annexure-11), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Giridih, whereby it is informed to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Giridih that the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is not maintainable as he has made his application after delay of about 13 years.

(III) For quashing the memo No. 2070 dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure-5), issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

(IV) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as his father, who was working to the post of Peon (Padchar), died in harness on 15.03.2004.

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner, late Ramchandra Mahto was working to the post of Peon (Padchar) in the office of Commercial Taxes, Giridih and while in service, he died in harness on 15.03.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner being the elder and only major son of the deceased employee, had applied for his appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed format along with all the relevant documents on 06.08.2004. The application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the District Establishment Committee, Giridih and the said Committee vide letter dated 30.11.2005, had called for a report from the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih with regard to the 8th Pass Certificate as submitted by the petitioner. However, inspite of repeated reminders, the District Superintendent of Education had not sent any report and ultimately, when the said Committee sent strict reminder, then only the DSE had submitted his report on 22.12.2006, stating therein that the educational qualification certification submitted by the petitioner is doubtful. Thereafter, the Committee after considering the report of the DSE, decided to ask for 7th Pass certificate from the petitioner so that the Committee could consider about relaxation in the educational qualification for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and thereafter, further proceedings will be done by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Giridih. Pursuant to the said decision, the petitioner submitted his 7th pass certificate in the year 2007 and thereafter, the Committee in its meeting dated 05.12.2007, decided that since the petitioner had submitted his 7th pass certificate and the power for relaxation of educational qualification is vested only with the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department, the matter of petitioner relating to relaxation in educational qualification be sent to the said Department and directed that further proceeding will be done by the Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Hazaribag and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Giridih.

It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2008 an explanation was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih that how the name of the petitioner was proposed for appointment on compassionate ground to the District Establishment Committee without prior consent/ recommendation of the Headquarter, in response to which, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Giridih replied that the name of the petitioner was not proposed by him, rather, it was send by Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Hazaribag Division, but the application of the petitioner was considered by the District Establishment Committee with certain conditions. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the file relating to relaxation in educational qualification was sent to the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department. The said Department has not approved the proposal for granting relaxation in educational qualification and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner vide his memo dated 02.07.2012, rejected the application of the petitioner, although no application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was pending before. The said fact was also not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, inspite of the fact that he submitted several representations in between 2013 to 2016. Ultimately, when the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, he came to know about rejection of his application. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, it has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department vide its letter dated 18.07.2017 to reproduced all the relevant documents with recommendation. Upon receiving the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner asked to the petitioner to fill-up fresh application form, failing which his case will not be considered for compassionate appointment. Although the petitioner earlier objected the same but having no option, submitted fresh application on 16.08.2017 with protest.

Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, send the entire file to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department vide his letter dated 09.10.2017 informed the Deputy Commissioner that the application of the petitioner cannot be considered because the same is time barred, since the petitioner has submitted his application after lapse of 13 years and as per the rule, the same can be accepted if preferred within 5 years from the death of employee. The Deputy Commissioner informed the same to the District Establishment Committee vide letter dated 11.11.2017 and thereafter, the Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide its decision dated 17.05.2018, as contained in memo No. 349 dated 04.06.2018.

Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, malafide and against the principle of natural justice inasmuch as, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2004 itself but after 8 years, the respondents have rejected his claim for appointment, without giving any cogent reason and though the rejection order was passed in the year 2012, but the same was never communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that even after passing of 14 years from the date of death of his father, the respondents have not appointed the petitioner though he was running from pillar to post and the petitioner has no source of his livelihood specially when three of his younger brothers are wholly dependent upon him and it has become difficult for him and his family members to meet the needs of their life, which shows callous attitude of the respondents.

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. Leaned counsel submits that a letter dated 02.07.2012 was issued by the Headquarters to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.), which shows that the case for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was forwarded to the District Level Committee, which decided to seek clarification regarding relaxation in educational qualification from the Personnel Department. The case of the petitioner was accordingly forwarded to the said Department, which did not approve relaxation of educational qualification and consequently, the application of the petitioner was rejected. The said letter was marked to the petitioner and as such, it is presumed that official acts have been discharged in its proper manner. Learned counsel further argues that once the request for relaxation in educational qualification has been rejected, the petitioner did not have any case in his favour and it is inconsequential even if a formal order was not passed by the District Level Committee, since the Headquarters of the Commercial Taxes Department had rejected the case of the petitioner by assigning reason in support thereof. Learned counsel further argues that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2004 and now, after lapse of about 14 years, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Local Admn. Deptt. Vs. M. Selvanayage [(2011) 13 SCC 42] has held as under:-

"It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind."

Learned counsel accordingly submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed outrightly.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition on the following grounds:-

(I) For appointment to the post of Peon (Padchar), the minimum qualification at the relevant time was 8th pass and since the petitioner was not having the valid certificate of 8th pass, rightly his case was not considered.

(II) The petitioner has survived for 14 years from the date of death of his father and as such, at this stage no claim of compassionate appointment could be entertained.

(III) The case of petitioner for granting relaxation of educational qualification has duly been considered by the competent authority, i.e. Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand and was rejected. Consequently, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Headquarter of the Commercial Taxes Department and as such, at this stage claim for compassionate appointment could not be entertained.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560] has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:-

"16. ...................

Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:

(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh (supra), held as under:-

The Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion, wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are, misplaced sympathy and compassion."

(Emphasis supplied)

The compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. In the present case, the family of the deceased employee has survived for more than 14 years and as such, no compassion is left in the case of the petitioner.

As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the case of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law.

Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.