Jia Lal vs Union of India

T.S. Doabia, J.—Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. It is stated that further of the petitioner was working as a labourer with

respondent No. 4. He died on 3rd of February 1993. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner submitted an application in which prayer was

made that the petitioner be appointed on compassionate grounds. Copy of this representation has been placed on the record as P/2 and P/4.

Respondents have filed objections.

It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was working as Mazdoor. He died due to pulmonary tuberculosis disease. Fact that the

application was submitted by the mother of the petitioner is not denied. It is submitted that requisite recommendation was made to Headquarters

Northern Command. The recommendation which has been so made has been placed on the record as annexure RA. Prayer of the petitioner has

been rejected on the ground that he does not fulfil the criteria as indicated in annexure RB. It is submitted that the matter was reconsidered also.

The appointment could not be given as one of the members of the family is already employed.

It be seen that what was required to be considred was as to whether another member of the family was given appointment after the death of

father of the petitioner or he was given appointment much earlier. This aspect of the matter is not apparent from the reply filed by the respondents.

Merely because one member of the family is already working cannot be made a ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. What was

required to be seen was as to whether financial conduction of the family of the deceased is such which requires to be mitigated. Son who is already

serving if staying separate and is not helping the family, then that aspect of the matter was required to be taken note of. Guidelines annexure RA,

merely lays down that the dependent of the employee, who dies in harness, if in immediate need of assistance, the compassionate appointment is to

be given if there is no other earning member of the family. Brother who is stated to be in the employment of the respondents is said to be staying

separately. This aspect of the matter was brought out in the application copy whereof is annexure P/6. The financial and social position of the

family was given. Govind Ram son, who was given employment, was staying separately and was not helping family. This aspect of the matter has

not been taken note by the respondents.

It be seen that this aspect of the matter was considered in detail in SWP No. 1504 of 1990, decided on 6.7.1998, Anwar Farooqi v. Union of

India, 1998(3) S.C.T. 794 . After taking note of instruction issued by Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Personnel Public Grievance person

(department of personal training) O.M. No. 14014 PB/B6/Est dated 30.6.87, following directions were made :

It be seen that brother in question was in service before petitioner's father died. If this be the situation then question which was required to be

gone into is as to whether the financial condition of the family was such which required to be mitigated. Without taking note of this fact, respondent

authorities have declined the prayer of the petitioner. This is not correct approach. As a matter of fact while dealing with rules of compassionate

appointment in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in case of Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, 1999(2) S.C.T. 34, SWP No. 488 of 1998 decided on

29th June 1998 , it was held that the basic idea of giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate the financial crisis of the family of the deceased.

The above decision was no doubt with regard to rules, prevailing in the State of J&K but the basic idea is that it is the financial position of the

family which is required to be taken note of. This is to be given paramount considerations. This has happened in this case. In Susheela B. Bhakta v.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 1995(3) SCT 382 , it was held that it is the duty of the authorities to hold an appropriate enquiry as

to whether the family comprised of the dependants of deceased has any income to sustain. If it is found that the bereaved family is not in a position

to tide over the crisis, then compassionate appointment should be given. Merely because separated son of the deceased has already been in

employment is no ground to deny the relief to the remaining family in distress.

Under these circumstances, petition is allowed. As such a direction is given to the respondentauthorities to reconsider the matter and take

remedial measures at an earliest, preferably within three months.