Jatinder Kumar vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The un-successful applicant-Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 20.1.2011 (P-3) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ''the Tribunal'') rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father in harness on 12.10.2005.

On 11.5.2006, the applicant-Petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment on a Group-C post. On 29.5.2008, the General Manager, Telecom, District Patiala-Respondent No. 4 rejected his request on the basis of the recommendations made by a Committee under the Weightage Point System, which was introduced on 27.6.2007 (A-9). The Committee after considering the case came to the conclusion that the net points earned by him were less than 55 and that the family of the ex-employee was not living in an indigent condition (A-1). Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-Petitioner filed O.A. No. 351/PB/10 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application, vide order dated 20.1.2011 by observing as under:

At the outset, it may be pointed out that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right and it is given only to meet the immediate financial hardship in which the family may have been driven after death of the sole bread-winner. The compassionate employment could be offered only against a regular vacant post and if there is no such post, no offer of appointment could be made. Further, such an employment could be offered in accordance with the instructions on the subject and on the basis of and the criteria laid down for the purpose. Appointment on compassionate grounds has to be made within a reasonable period and as per latest instructions of the Govt. of India, the maximum period for which case of an individual for compassionate employment could be kept for consideration is 3 years, after which it is to be finally closed.

We find that the case of the applicant has been considered by the Respondents, but since he could not secure the requisite points (i.e. 55) so as to be eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of the laid down criteria, no interference is called for by this Tribunal with the order of rejection of his case. Moreover, the death of the Govt. employee had occurred in October 2005 and family has somehow continued to survive for all these years without assistance, the element of ''immediate hardship'' is missing in this case. The OA is, therefore, held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

The grievance of the applicant-Petitioner is that the Respondents as well as the Tribunal have erred in law in not considering the fact that his case for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered under the instructions dated 9.10.1998, issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (A-8) instead of subsequent instructions dated 27.6.2007 (A-9), whereby the ''weightage point system'' was introduced for processing the cases of compassionate appointment. In that regard reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana 2008 (4) SCT 475.

Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant-Petitioner at a considerable length and perused the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. At the outset it would be pertinent to refer to the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment-1998 framed by the Government of India, dated 9.10.1998 (A-8). The striking feature of the said Scheme is that it has been framed keeping in view various judgments of Hon�ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Auditor General of India and others Vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao, ; Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, and State of Haryana v. Rani Devi JT 1996 (6) SC 646 as also on the basis of various recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and Study Reports of 1990 and 1994 prepared by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on the subject of compassionate appointments. Para 5 of the Scheme contain eligibility conditions which prescribe as under:

ELIGIBILITY

(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.

(emphasis added)

Para 7 of the Scheme deals with determination/availability of vacancies. As per sub-para (b) of Para 7 of the Scheme the compassionate appointments can be made up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group �C� or �D� post. The appointing authority may hold back up to 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. Para 16 under the heading of �General� postulates certain guiding principles for making appointments on compassionate ground. Sub-para (c) of Para 16 of the Scheme is reproduced as under:

GENERAL

(a) and (b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) The Scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by the Government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government servants dying in harness/retired on medical grounds. An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc.

(Emphasis by us)

Now, we come to the subsequent instructions dated 27.6.2007 (A-9). A bare perusal of the said instructions shows that the same have been issued only to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family for offering compassionate appointment by introducing ''weightage point system''. It has been specifically mentioned in para 2.0(I) of the instructions dated 27.6.2007 that the same have been issued in continuance of the policy guidelines dated 9.10.1998. Para 2.0 of the instructions dated 27.6.2007 reads thus:

2.0 Accordingly, the High Power Committee of the Corporate Office for considering the compassionate ground appointment cases, Headed by Director (HRD), recommended for introduction of a weightage point system, within DOPT guidelines, to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family, which has subsequently been approved by the Management Committee of BSNL as per the following:-

(I) To continue with the policy guidelines on compassionate ground appointment, issued by DOPT vide OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated October 9, 1998 and to introduce the weightage point system, as per details given at Annexure-I.

(II) The assessment criteria for recommendation of the indigent condition of the family by the Circle High Power Committee shall be � (a) Cases with 55 or more NET POINTS shall be prima-facie treated as eligible for consideration by Corporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment and (b) Cases with NET POINTS below 55 (i.e. 54 or less) shall be treated as non-indigent and rejected.

It is, thus, clear that no fresh instructions were issued on 27.6.2007 (A-9) but the same merely supplant the policy guidelines dated 9.10.1998, which itself prescribes the ''status of a family as indigent'' as one of the factor to become eligible for getting compassionate appointment. Para 16(c) of the policy guidelines dated 9.10.1998 further lays down guiding principles that while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account the assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. It seems that the said object is sought to be achieved by introducing ''weightage point system'' by the instructions dated 27.6.2007 (A-9) so that there may not be any heartburning and all the similar situate are treated alike. Even otherwise, to become eligible, one has to fulfill the conditions laid down in policy guidelines dated 9.10.1998 only then the instructions dated 27.6.2007 would come in picture. Therefore, we are not impressed with the contention of the Petitioner that his case has not been considered under the policy guidelines dated 9.10.1998.

We further find that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread winner, as has been held by Hon�ble the Supreme Court in the cases of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Another Vs. Nanak Chand and Another, and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, . Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The father of the applicant-Petitioner expired on 12.10.2005. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by his death is still prevailing and continuing. Hon�ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , has held that compassionate appointment after lapse of number of years is impermissible.

As a sequel to the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.