Jaswant Singh vs Additional Director And Ors

The current case has been taken up for consideration of the admissibility of the OA-1942/2018 filed by the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant for some time, who took me through the facts of the case.

After perusing the file and hearing the learned counsel Sh. D.K. Sharma, it is noticed that this is the third round of litigation. The grievance of the applicant is that after the death of his father on 27.08.2006, the respondents have denied him compassionate appointment by rejecting his claim arbitrarily.

To briefly recapitulate the facts, the applicant's father died while he was in service of the respondents (CGHS) on 27.08.2006. The applicant requested for grant of compassionate appointment, which was not forthcoming. Hence, he approached the Tribunal through OA-2865/2012. During the pendency of the said O.A., the Committee on compassionate appointment considered the 79 applications before them and recommended 17 applicants rejecting the remaining 61 (including the applicant).

Subsequently, the applicant came to know through information sought under the RTI that his case was rejected since he was only 10 th standard pass whereas the Committee had considered names of candidates, who had passed at least 12th standard. Learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of submissions emphasized that this information is incorrect inasmuch as some of the candidates recommended for appointment have the same qualification i.e. they are only 10th standard pass like the applicant. Despite that, they have been appointed as LDCs. The applicant again approached the Tribunal through OA-3884/2011. While deciding the same on 27.02.2015, the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the applicant in the current year in accordance with Instructions on the subject of compassionate appointment. It was stated by the arguing counsel and is also stated in the O.A. that finding no response to the said order, the applicant represented to the respondents for compliance and later filed CP-472/2015, which was closed on 10.08.2016 with the following orders:-

"3. The respondents vide reply to the CP filed a speaking order dated 02.03.2016 and today also produced another Revised Speaking Order dated 21.06.2016 wherein the respondents after considering the case of the applicant, have rejected the same by stating that no regular post is available for compassionate appointment to the applicant.

In the circumstances and in view of the substantial compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the CP is closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. However, the applicant is at liberty to question the order now passed by the respondents, if he is still aggrieved, in accordance with law. No costs."

The applicant then filed WP(C)-3261/2018 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.04.2018. the current O.A. impugning the order dated 21.06.2016.

The applicant has now filed the current O.A. impugning the order dated 21.06.2016 and seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Pass the direction to the respondent no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the applicant and appoint the applicant on compassionate ground.

(ii) Initiate disciplinary action against the respondent no.1 and 2 for filing wrong and false speaking order dated 21.06.2016 in the contempt petition no. 472/2015.

(iii) Pass such other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice."

On going through the entire facts of the case, what emerges is that the applicant lost his father (almost) 12 years ago (27.08.2006). His case has been examined and reexamined by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The respondents were directed to examine his case as per law. They have found that his is not a fit case for compassionate appointment in accordance with Instructions issued by Government of India. The Tribunal closed the Contempt Petition against the respondents observing that the respondents vide their speaking orders dated 02.0.2006 and 21.06.2006 have rejected the case of the applicant by stating that no regular post is available for compassionate appointment of the applicant.

While considering the request of the applicant for admission of his OA, it is relevant here to refer to the O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 on Compassionate Appointment issued by Government of India, which stipulates that the mandatory ingredients (as those listed below) should be kept in mind while considering the claim viz:-

"(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and

(b) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules."

The most important ingredient of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment is that the family should be indigent and in need of "immediate assistance" to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Second issue is regarding the eligibility and suitability of the applicant for the post. In the instant case, the applicant is before the Court when almost 12 years have lapsed since the death of his father. Undoubtedly, he had approached the respondents earlier but his request could not be considered since (apparently) there were more needy and indigent people, who were found to be more deserving than the applicant. In view of the same, it cannot be said that he has been discriminated against. In addition, he was also found working being only 10th pass and preference was given to others who were 12th pass.

The Scheme of compassionate appointment is one of the welfare measures, which has been introduced by the Government of India and has been successfully implemented by various Government departments. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, JT 1996(5) SC 319 has held that appointment on compassionate ground can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose.

Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam [Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2206) on 05.04.2011 has observed that:-

"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 dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants 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."

After going through the facts of the case, I find that the case of the applicant has been considered and reconsidered by the respondents. But due to non-availability of the vacancy, he could not be offered appointment on compassionate ground under 5% direct recruitment quota. There is no illegality in the speaking order dated 21.06.2016, which is categoric. The applicant cannot be allowed to re-agitate this matter time and again, at his will. Also, the need for providing immediate assistance to the family to get over the crisis due to sudden demise of the deceased employee does not prevail after more than a decade of the unfortunate incident.

Finding no merit in the O.A., the same is dismissed in limine.