Meena Srivastava And Ors vs Union of India And Ors

(1) Applicants Meena Srivastava (wife) and Madhav Murari Srivastava (son) of deceased Kunwar Murari Lal Srivastava have filed the present O.A. under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking compassionate appointment for applicant Madhava due to death of his father on 01.01.2009 while working in the respondent-department. The reason for seeking compassionate appointment is that after the death of his father, the condition of the applicants have become indigent and precarious since they were dependent upon the income of said Kunwar Murari Lal. It is further case of applicants that they have no source of income except the meagre family pension.

(2) Applicants' further case is that they have obtained a succession certificate (Annexure- A4) from SDM, Boodhanpur wherein 3 persons are shown to be legal heirs of deceased Kunwar Murari Lal. It is further averred in the O.A. that respondent No. 3 in compliance to order dated 22.01.2010 of respondent No. 1 and order dated 04.03.2010 of respondent No. 2 issued order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure No. A5) engaging applicant No. 2 with the stipulation that the engagement is temporary for one year or compassionate appointment whichever is earlier.

(3) It is case of applicant that he sent a representation dated 16.4.3011 to all the respondents seeking compassionate appointment wherein he also averred that all the legal heirs are given their consent for appointment of applicant No.2 on compassionate basis. Hence, the present O.A wherein applicants have sought the relief of seeking direction to the respondents to grant the applicant No.2 the benefit of compassionate appointment on a suitable post, in lieu of late Shri Kunwar Murari Lal Srivastava who has died in harness while in the employment under the respondent NO.3.

(4) Order dated 20.4.2010 issued by Inspector (Post) (Respondent No. 3) is to the effect that in compliance to orders of Post Master General, Gorakhpur and Senior superintendent of Post Office, Madhav Murari son of deceased Kunwar Lal is appointed as adhoc Dispatcher, Khajuri for one year or compassionate appointment which is earlier. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.03.2011, it was ordered that service of Madhav Murari would terminated on 20.04.2011.

(5) In their counter affidavit, respondents have taken the plea that applicant No.2 was engaged on temporary basis and his case for appointment was sent to Circle Relaxation Committee. During this period, applicant No.2 was appointed on temporary basis for one year or appointment on compassionate ground whichever was earlier and declaration was taken from said applicant No.2 that he shall not claim any appointment/regularization in the case if his case was not considered in his favour and he executed an affidavit in this regard (Annexure CA-6). It is further averred in the CA that case of compassionate appointment of applicant No.2 is on the verge of completion and will be put before Circle Relaxation Committee for consideration of compassionate appointment.

(6) In the rejoinder affidavit filed by applicant, it has been averred that every compassionate appointment is permanent in nature, while ignoring aforesaid principle given appointment to the applicant only with this condition that firstly he filed affidavit on oath, that he will not have any claim before department or any court of law for regularization. It is also stated that he will also give statement on oath if engagement is terminated after one year, then he will not file any case in court of law. That's why the applicant filed aforesaid affidavit before the respondents. It is also submitted here that in the present case applicant is claiming compassionate appointment in place of his father, who has died in harness on 2.1.2009. It is case of applicant that the letter dated 22.8.2012 sent by Asstt. Director (Rectt.) to A.D.P.S Gorakhpur makes it clear that the respondents have not put up all the documents before the Competent Authority for the consideration of the case of applicant.

(7) I have heard and considered the argument of counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.

(8) Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the appointment of applicant for one year was permanent in nature and therefore, the services of the applicant could not have been terminated by the respondents even though he had filed an affidavit that he will not make any claim before the department or court for regularization of his services and in the present case applicant is claiming compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that the concerned authority has not put up all the relevant documents before the Competent Authority for the consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate basis.

(9) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appointment to the applicant was given on temporary basis and that his case for compassionate appointment is under active consideration by the department and therefore, the present OA has been filed prematurely and deserves to be dismissed.

(10) Undoubtedly the appointment of applicant for one year was not a regular appointment but limited to 1 Year or appointment on compassionate basis whichever is earlier therefore by no means it cannot be said that the said appointment was on regular basis on the ground of compassionate appointment. The affidavit, the order passed by the department was very clear that appointment of applicant NO.2 was on temporary basis and he would not have no right to claim regularization of his appointment.

(11) However, as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in November 2012, the application of applicant No.2 for appointment on compassionate basis is still pending in the department which needs to be considered by the respondents at the earliest keeping in view the financial destitute condition of applicants and as per the Hon'ble High Court there can be no limit of maximum numbers of year for which an application may be considered for compassionate appointment. In the present case applicant has submitted that the respondents have not put up all the documents before the competent authority for the consideration of his case for compassionate appointment.

(12) Looking to the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the facts mentioned above, direction is given to the respondents to consider applicant's case for compassionate appointment taking into account the poverty in which the family is living and also the fact that the financial condition of the applicants was assessed by the respondents and was the reason for giving applicant nor, the temporary appointment in the first place. It is the case of applicant that all the documents have not been forwarded by the respondents to the competent authority. In this regard, applicants are permitted to file all the relevant documents which in their view are relevant for the consideration of compassionate appointment. They shall file the documents within a period of 10 days from receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall take into consideration the documents, if any, filed by the applicants. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard which would be communicated to the applicants. OA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.