Haison. K.S vs Union Of India & Others

K. Haripal, Member J

The applicant is the second son of late K.C.Shanmughan, who was a Postman under the respondents 2 and 3, who died on 26.07.2010 due to cardiac arrest. At that time, he had hardly five months service as Postman, though he had been working as Gramin Dak Sevak for over 30 years and 8 months. According to the applicant, his family belongs to reserved community, and they were living on the income of the father. They do not have any land or house of their own. When the father was alive, they were residing with the brother of the father in his house. After the death of the father, the family shifted to the house of the brother of the mother. Earlier, the elder brother of the applicant, Shaison had moved an application for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, which was rejected. Later, the mother and the applicant gave representations and that have been rejected by Annexure-A1 order. The applicant is aggrieved by Anneures-A1 and A2 orders. According to him, after the death of the father, the mother has not received any pension and they do not have any regular source of income. The applicant had studied upto SSLC, due to the worst financial status of the family, they are entitled to get appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The applications were rejected by the respondents arbitrarily and illegally. The applicant is the most deserving candidate. But the respondents had adopted double standards in granting compassionate appointment. Earlier, when the elder brother of the applicant had applied, his application was rejected on the ground that he did not possess necessary educational qualifications. In fact, he was holding THSLC and VHSC certificates, but they were not informed in advance that THSLC and VHSC are not the required qualifications. Then the mother and the applicant had moved another application. That has been rejected on the ground that change of the applicant cannot be considered. Therefore, Annexures- A1 and A2 are sought to be quashed and a declaration is sought to the effect that the applicant is entitled to get employment under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Respondents filed a reply denying the contentions of the applicant. It is admitted that K.C.Shanmughan, Postman, the father of the applicant, had died on 26.07.2010 at the age of 53 years, due to cardiac arrest. He is survived by his wife K.C.Sukumary, elder son Shaison and younger son K.S.Haison, who is the applicant. The said Shanmunghan had put in 4 months and 15 days of service only, though he had been a Gramin Dak Sevak in the department. The application of the elder son was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee met on 01.04.2014 and found that he is not eligible and suitable to the post as he did not possess essential educational qualifications and that application was rejected. The respondents are not entitled to grant any relaxation with regard to the basic educational qualification of the applicant. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant moved a representation. But that request has been rejected as there is no provision for changing the applicant. They have also contested the claim of the applicant that the mother was not given any pension. In fact Annexures-R2 and R3 documents indicate that the mother was granted provisional family pension of Rs.3,500/- and then regular pension of Rs.3500/- per month. The respondents also contend that changing the applicant after the rejection of the earlier application will create an unfair precedent and therefore that was not acceptable. The Circle Relaxation Committee met on 01.04.2014 had considered 22 cases and recommended 14 cases for appointment, the application of the elder brother was rejected for the reason that he did not possess the basic essential educational qualification. According to them, THSLC and VHSC are not the required qualifications for the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, Postman or MTS. That was how that case was rejected.

The applicant filed a rejoinder stating that the statement that the mother was not given any pension, was incorporated by mistake for which he apologized. In fact, it is not a case of changing the applicant. Earlier, when the brother of the applicant had moved an application, they were not told that he did not possess essential educational qualifications. The applications were forwarded through the 3rd respondent only with the assistance of the staff of the office. If they had informed the fact that he did not possess necessary educational qualifications, such an application should not have been sent and thus it is submitted that the respondents have adopted double standards.

The respondents filed additional reply rejecting the contentions in the application and the rejoinder and reiterated the stand taken in the first reply. According to them, they are bound to move by the policy on the prescribed educational qualifications. Moreover, by lapse of time, the application has lost significance. Time is the essence of the benefit to be provided under the scheme. The very object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and financial destitution and to give immediate assistance to the family of the deceased. Now by the lapse of time, the application has lost its relevance and therefore, he seeks to reject the application.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even without matriculation, in appropriate cases, the elder brother of the applicant could have been considered for the post of atleast MTS. The respondents have adopted inhuman methods for rejecting the applications given by his elder brother and the mother. According to him, even the order was not communicated to them, they had to resort to the provisions under the Right to Information Act for getting to know about the outcome of the applications for compassionate appointment given by them. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, such contentions have not been pleaded. Even though much has been argued about the rejection of Annexure-A3, the correctness of this document has not been challenged at the appropriate time. After the rejection of the application of the elder brother, the applicant moved an application for compassionate appointment, which could not have been considered as a change of the applicant is not allowable. Learned Standing Counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653], State of Maharashtra and another v. M/s. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate [AIR 2022 SC 5176] to support his arguments. According to him, the father of the applicant had died on 26.07.2010. Even though the first application was filed by the elder brother of the applicant in 2010 itself, which was rejected for want of necessary qualifications, Annexures-A3 and A4 were filed in 2015, that is after about five years. The very fact that the family could sustain nearly 12 years after the death of the employee is a testimony to say that they are not entitled to get the benefit under the scheme.

It is not necessary to state the object and purpose of appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. It is a well settled principle that, it is not a regular source of appointment but is an exception to the regular methods of appointment that is given under the compassionate appointment scheme to a dependent of an employee who died in harness. Therefore, the most important object is that the appointment should be granted at the earliest, to tide over the financial crisis that happened due to the untime demise of the bread winner of the family. In other words, ultimate aim of the scheme is to give immediate succour to the family by employment assistance.

In this connection, it is apposite to extract the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661].

It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme.…......”

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“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 the member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. ….....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 only ground which can justify compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. ….....The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. …...The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis......”

It is also trite, as held by Indian Bank and Others v. Promila and Another [(2020) 2 SCC 729] that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek the benefit. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.

Here, it is true that at first the elder brother of the applicant had moved an application, but he did not possess necessary qualifications, even though he was holding a certificate in THSLC and VHSC. The scheme produced by the respondent clearly indicates that those are not necessary qualifications for considering the candidate for appointment under the scheme.

Even though relaxation is possible, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, essential educational qualification cannot be relaxed by the respondents. The scheme produced by the respondents do indicate that THSLC or VHSC are not the essential qualifications for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, Postman or MTS. In fact it eludes comprehension as to how a person with THSLC or VHSC is not qualified to be considered for the post of MTS; at the same time if he possesses SSLC, he can be considered. Any how, those are matters beyond the scope of the O.A. Whatever it may be, the case of the elder brother could not be considered for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. Thus the application was rejected by Annexure-A2 order, following which Annexures-A3 and A4 representations were given by the mother and the applicant respectively, which were not considered and rejected by Annexure-A1. In Annexure-A1, it has been pointed out that a change in name of the applicant is not possible.

In effect, the eligibility of the applicant has not been considered by the respondents. But, by now more than 12 years have passed after the death of the father. The earlier application was rejected since the elder brother did not possess necessary basic educational qualifications. Now, on the ground that the second application, that is the application moved by the applicant, was rejected on the ground that change of applicant is not possible. As correctly put, time is the essence of such an application and the purpose and object and philosophy of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the bereaved family to tide over the financial crisis happened due to the sudden demise of the bread winner. Even though the respondents had no occasion to consider the eligibility or otherwise of the applicant or his elder brother, by passage of long lapse of time the application has lost its importance and significance.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, it is not the policy to consider successive applications for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The elder brother had filed application without understanding the fact that he did not possess necessary general educational qualifications. No doubt, the respondents had a duty to assist the members of the family to file a proper application after realising the necessary nuances. But that application was rejected which cannot be faulted as it did not conform the scheme. This time a second application was filed by the applicant. But by the time much time had elapsed. The most important aspect, as pointed out earlier, is to provide assistance to the bereaved family at the time of their misery by way of employment assistance. Now, more than 12 years have passed. That means, the family could sustain even without employment assistance from the respondents. Passage of time has shown that the family could sustain even without any such assistance.

It is unfortunate that the respondents had no occasion to consider the financial indigency of the family. But at this distance of time, it is not appropriate to consider the case again. What is important is the plight of the family on the relevant date, that is the date of death in 2010. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant.

But it requires to be stated that if there was someone in the office who was sensitive who entertained the application from the elder brother of the applicant, such a tragedy would have been avoided. It is hoped that respondents shall take proper steps to guard against such complaints in future.

The Original Application is dismissed, with regrets.

Dated, this the 2nd January, 2023.