Pushpendrasingh vs Union of India

S.C. Sharma, J—Parties through their counsel.

The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition claiming Compassionate Appointment. The petitioner''s contention is that his father late Membersingh was working as Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Ratlam. He died in harness on 26/01/2012 leaving behind two sons and wife namely Smt. Subhadra Singh.

It has also been stated that the petitioner''s father died on account of kidney failure and he was suffering from renal disease and the entire salary which petitioner''s father was receiving, was spent in paying hospital bills.

It has further been stated that the amount received by way of terminal dues was also spent in clearing the dues of the family and after death of petitioner''s father, the pension was sanctioned to petitioner''s mother and unfortunately, she also expired later on.

The petitioner who is a well educated person and who does not have a job, submitted an application in time to the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment, keeping in view the policy issued by Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) on 05/09/2007 i.e., standing order No. 82. The respondents have rejected the petitioner''s candidature by an order dated 02/07/2013 holding that the petitioner is competent to look after himself.

The petitioner has again submitted a representation and the same has also been turned down by an order dated 15/07/2014.

The petitioner''s contention is that he is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment especially in light of the fact that his father has served the department with sincerity and devotion and without any blemish and the entire savings of his father were utilized in paying the medical bills.

It has also been argued that as family has no other source of income and mother has also expired and it is a fit case for granting compassionate appointment. A reply has already been filed in the matter and it has been argued at length that the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment as the mother of the petitioner was sanctioned family pension and the family has also received terminal dues.

It has also been stated that the petitioner is a well educated person holding a degree of Bachelor of Hotel Management and therefore, he can earn his livelihood by doing his job and therefore, the question of granting compassionate appointment does not arise.

The respondents has also stated that the petitioner is aged about 33 years and in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 68 FLR 1191 : (1994) 3 JT 525 : (1994) 2 SCALE 834 : (1994) 4 SCC 138 : (1994) 3 SCR 893 : (1995) 1 SLJ 229 : (1994) 2 UJ 322 , the application deserves to be dismissed. The respondents have also placed reliance upon other judgments also.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner''s father, after completion of 33 years and 10 months of service, expired while in service. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner''s father expired on account of renal failure and was suffering from renal disorder, which requires constant treatment and the amount received by way of terminal dues, was paid in clearing the medical bills of his father.

The petitioner''s candidature was considered by the respondents on a representation which was submitted and which is on record as P/11 and investigation was carried out. A report was submitted and in the report it was stated that the petitioner has obtained 10th standard in the year 1994-1995, 12th standard in 1995-1997 and he is also holding Bachelor of Hotel Management Course. It was also mentioned in the report that the financial status of the family is in order. There was no statement in respect of the property of the family and there is no statement in respect of the other financial means of the family and based upon the aforesaid report, the respondents have passed an order on 02/07/2013 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner is competent to earn his livelihood and therefore, his application is rejected.

The order was passed by the Chief Divisional Railway Manager Establishment, Ratlam and thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the General Manager. He has also rejected the same by an order dated 15/07/2013.

This court keeping in view the totality and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the policy on the subject, is of the considered opinion that the respondents have erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner, merely on the basis that the petitioner was an educated person. It does not mean that he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment will not be declined on account of educational qualifications and will not deprive him of his legitimate right to compassionate appointment.

Resultantly, impugned orders are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the policy framed on the subject i.e., standing order 82.

The claim of the petitioner will not be turned down by the respondents only because he is an educated person. Not only this, incase the petitioner has been over age, the respondents, keeping in view the Clause 6 of Standard Order 18, Annexure P/18 shall relax the upper age limit also.

The respondents will also take into account the fact that the petitioner''s mother is no more and the children were not receiving family pension and also taking into account that the entire money received as terminal dues was also spent in paying the medical bills.

The exercise of considering the case of the petitioner be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.

Certified copy as per rules.