Pardeep Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others

S.S. Nijjar, J.—We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

Father of the petitioner passed away on 27.7.2000. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground which

has been rejected by the respondents by order dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure P-2).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Kant Kadam v.

State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 2001 Sc 2415. He also relies on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Gulbahar Singh v. State of Punjab

and Anr. 2002(1) R.S.J. 290 and Rajinder Kumar Khera Vs. State of Haryana and Another, . Learned Counsel further submits that the action of

the respondents is discriminatory since some persons similarly situated to the petitioner were appointed on compassionate grounds.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner

for appointment on compassionate grounds, by giving cogent reasons in the impugned order (Annexure P-2) which are as under:

Sub: Compassionate ground appointment case of Sh. Pardeep Kumar review from Group-D to Group-C post.

As per the policy, when a person is appointed on compassionate grounds to a particular post, the set of circumstances, which led to such

appointment, should be deemed to have ceased to exist. Moreover, as per the judgment dated May 4, 1994 of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the

case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. J.T. 1994 (3) S.C. 505 neither the qualifications/status of the applicant (dependent

family member) nor the post held by the deceased government servant is relevant. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family

thro'' (sic.) the economic calamity.

In view of the above instructions regarding appointment on compassionate grounds and judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court conveyed vide

Corporate Office, New Delhi letter No. 268-24/2002-Pers/IV dated 5.11.2004 endorsed vide Chief G.M.T. BSNL, Pb. Circle, Chandigarh,

Endst. No. R&E/R/Pb/313/21 dated 16.11.2004, your request dated 18.6.2004 for appointment on compassionate grounds as TOA (G) instead

of Regular Mazdoor, has not been acceded to.

The aforesaid reasons given by the respondents are in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal

(supra) in which it has been held as under:

As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of

appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other

procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case,

there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favor of the dependents

of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian

consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends

meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such

employment. 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 a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does

not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.

The aforesaid observations make it abundantly clear that the object of giving appointment on compassionate grounds is only to assist the family

in an emergency who has fallen into abject penury due to the death of the only bread-winner of the family. The object is not to replace the

deceased employee with the dependent of the deceased employee. In the present case, the father of the petitioner passed away on 27.7.2000.

Therefore, in our opinion, the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to fall within the exception carved out in the observations made by the Supreme

Court. In our opinion, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka and

Ors. (supra), Gulbahar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) and Rajinder Kumar Khera Vs. State of Haryana and Another, have been

rendered in the facts and circumstances of those cases and the observations made in those cases are not applicable to the present case. We also

do not find much merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that some persons similarly situated to the petitioner have been given appointment

on compassionate grounds on a higher post. We are of the considered opinion that a wrong benefit granted to some persons cannot be permitted

to be compounded by a direction of this Court. The courts cannot direct the grant of a benefit, even if it causes hardship to a person, if it is initially

granted contrary to the rules to some other persons. This view of ours finds support from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India and Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar etc., wherein Shall, J. has held as under:

Therefore, by erroneous interpretation of the rules, if pensionary benefits are granted to someone, it would not mean that the said mistake

should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something

which is contrary to the statutory rules. In such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any

right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel. Further, in such cases, there cannot be any

consideration on the ground of hardship....

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.