Rahul Suresh More vs Union of India And Ors

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 claiming the following reliefs:-

"8(a) To allow the application

(b) To call for the records pertaining to consideration of the case/application of the applicant by the Committee, and after examining the same to quash and set aside the order dt.27.01.2017 issued by the respondent No.3.

(c) To direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant freshly for compassionate appointment in accordance with the provisions of D.O.P.T O.M. on the subject and without taking into account the terminal benefits received by the applicant's mother.

(d) To pass any other order which may be considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.."

The facts are that Shri Suresh Pandurang More, the father of the applicant was working as Technician 'C' in the office of respondent No.3 and he died on 02.08.2011. After the death of Shri Suresh Pandurang More (hereinafter referred as to 'deceased employee'), his wife Smt Ashalata S. More is receiving her basic family pension. She approached the respondent No.3 vide application dated 09.10.2011 for grant of appointment to Ms. Sonali S. More, her daughter, on compassionate grounds. Vide letter dated 16.11.2012 the respondents rejected the application. Ms. Sonali S. More made representation dated 15.03.2013 to respondent No.3 that there was dire need for compassionate appointment for a member of the deceased family due to their financial condition as the terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased employee were utilised to pay back the loans taken from the relatives to meet his medical expenses and towards marriage expenses of the elder daughter of the deceased. Vide letter dated 10.06.2013 the respondent No.3 informed that it was not found administratively feasible to accede the request for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2.1 On 18.12.2013 the present applicant made representation to respondent No.3 agitating that since after the death of the deceased employee, his family members were surviving on the meager family pension received by the mother of the applicant, hence he be given appointment on compassionate grounds. He did not receive any reply thus he issued reminder dated 24.06.2014 to respondent No.3 but without any response. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide Writ Petition No.9175/2014 whereby the directions were issued to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to reconsider the application for appointment on compassionate grounds uninfluenced by earlier order/communication dated 10.06.2013 which was passed on the application filed by the sister of the present applicant.

2.2 In pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the respondents re-examined the request of the applicant, in terms of existing Government instructions on the subject however vide impugned order dated 27.01.2017, the applicant was not found fit for grant of compassionate appointment.

2.3 It is alleged by the applicant that the impugned order is silent about the points allotted/secured by the applicant on the basis of which his case was not found to be fit for compassionate appointment.

2.4 The impugned order dated 27.01.2017 has been challenged on the following grounds:-

(a) That the applicant was studying at the time of death of deceased employee. None of the family member was in employment and there was no source of income, other than the family pension which his mother was getting.

(b) The deceased employee died after prolonged illness leaving behind his son i.e. the applicant, his wife and two daughters. The entire retiral benefits were utilised by the family to pay back the loans taken from the relatives to meet his medical expenses.

(c) The marking system followed by the respondents to assess the suitability for compassionate appointment was unfair.

2.5 It is claimed that the applicant is well qualified and is willing to work under the respondents in any capacity so as to mitigate the financial crisis being faced by the family. Further that the younger daughter of the deceased employee is of a marriageable age.

The respondents in their affidavit in reply admitted that Smt A.S. More wife of deceased employee submitted an application dated 09.11.2011 to the Director, HEMRL, Pune for compassionate appointment to her daughter Ku. Sonali Suresh More. After, due procedural formalities, the case of the applicant was sent to DRDO Hqrs. for consideration by the Competent Authority. Action for processing the case of the applicant was initiated as per the scheme for compassionate appointment issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, DOP&T, New Delhi OM No.14014/6/94- Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998 and various instructions issued from time to time thereon, which have been published now as consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment vide OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013.

3.1 It is submitted that as per the scheme, Compassionate appointments can be made only upto the maximum 5% of the vacancies falling under Direct Recruitment quota in GP 'C' posts. The request of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC), however, the same could not be recommended by the competent authority on the basis of inter-se-merit vis-a-vis limited number of vacancies available for this purpose. The decision of the competent authority was accordingly communicated to HEMRL, Pune by means of a speaking order dated 25.10.2012 and further to the applicant vide HEMRL, Pune letter dated 16.11.2012.

3.2 The case was reconsidered in respect of Ku. Sonali Suresh More and in respect of Shri Rahul Suresh More also number of times by the competent authority. However, there was no change in the parameters resulting no change in the merit of the case except the change of applicant. Therefore, the instant case did not find merit in comparison to other deserving cases and limited number of vacancies available for the purpose for offering the compassionate appointment. The applicant was suitably informed about the decision taken by the competent authority.

3.3 Further that in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CWP No.9175/2014, the case was reconsidered by the competent authority in light of DOP&T/MoD guidelines and various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also keeping in view the vacancies available under 5% ceiling of DR vacancies in GP 'C' posts and more deserving cases which are required to be accommodated within the 5% vacancies available for this purpose. However, the same was rejected on the basis of inter-se-merit.

3.4 The respondents have relied upon the following judgments in support of their claim:-

Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others (JT 1994 (3) SC 525)

2.Himachal Road T ransport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar (JT 1996(5)SC 319 on May 7, 1996)

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Smt A. Radhika Thirumalai (JT 1996 (9) SC 197 on October 9, 1996.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Rarnchandra Ambekar and Other (JT 1994 (2) SC 183)

3.5 It is stated that the compassionate appointment can not be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. In support of their claim the respondents have relied upon the DoPT OMs dated 16.07.2012 and 26.07.2012 respectively.

3.6 It is further claimed that the OA is bad for non joinder of party as Smt Asha S. More the first claimant i.e the widow of the deceased employee has not been joined as a party in the present OA.

3.7 It is stated that late Shri S.P. More, Ex-Technician 'C' expired on 2nd August 2011 and at this belated juncture, it is not permissible under OM dated 09.10.1998 to grant the compassionate appointment that too since the wife of the government servant has not claimed the compassionate appointment. That Kumari Sonali Suresh More has applied for compassionate appointment and thereafter she has demitted her claim and now Shri Rahul Suresh More son of the deceased employee is claiming the compassionate appointment who is 30 years of age and a graduate. That it is impossible to believe that he is dependent on the deceased employee or the widow who is earning more than 9,000/- rupees per month as pension.

3.8 The respondents have submitted that the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 was issued by the competent authority after taking into account the entire circumstances including the fact that only 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies can be filled through compassionate appointment scheme.

3.9 It is further stated that the most deserving cases in comparative merit are only considered subject to availability of vacancies. The case of the applicant was reconsidered and it was not found to be a fit case for grant of compassionate appointment. Further that the cause of action in present OA was only on account of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.9175/2014 but the eligibility conditions for considering the case of the applicant remained unchanged. That as per the scheme for compassionate appointment, the case of the applicant was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and it was rejected on the basis of inter-se-merit vis-a-vis vacancies available for this purpose.

I have heard the arguments of Ms. Annie Nadar, proxy counsel for Shri S.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.R. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the material available on record alongwith the original record.

The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to over come the sudden crises and to relieve his family from financial destitution and to help them to get over the emergent situations. The compassionate appointment is to be granted to a dependent family member of a Government Servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Admittedly as per the scheme, compassionate appointment can be made only upto 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group 'C' posts. In this quota of vacancies available, the most acute and deserving cases are required to be accommodated. The case of the applicant was reconsidered by the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in C.W.P. No.9175/2014. However, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2017, the request of the applicant was rejected on the ground that it was not found administratively feasible to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant on the following grounds :-

(a) That only 5% of the Direct Recruitment vacancies of Group 'C' and 'D' can be filled through compassionate appointment scheme. The most deserving cases in comparative merit are approved for appointment due to availability of very limited vacancies for the purpose.

(b) To enable the competent authority to assess the degree of compassion on comparative basis, Ministry of Defence has evolved a method by devising '100 point scale': Points are allotted to a case based on eight factors viz.(i) Family Pension, (ii) Terminal Benefits, (iii) Income from other sources, (iv) Moveable and Immovable Property, (v) Number of Dependants, (vi)Number of unmarried daughters, (vii) Number of Minor Children and (viii) Left over service of the deceased employee. The points are allotted accordingly to each case. The number of vacancies being very meager, even very highly deserving cases, at times, cannot be accommodated due to lower points under comparative merit."

As referred above, it is observed that the degree of compassion is assessed on comparative basis by the Competent Authority, evolving a method by devising "100 point scale". There are 8 factors on the basis of which the points are allotted to a case under consideration for compassionate appointment which are as follows:-

(i) Family Pension,

(ii) Terminal Benefits,

(iii) Income from other sources,

(iv) Moveable and Immovable Property,

(v) Number of Dependants,

(vi)Number of unmarried daughters,

(vii) Number of Minor Children and

(viii) Left over service of the deceased employee.

In the present case for the perusal of Tribunal, the respondents have produced in sealed cover the relevant record of the points allotted to the applicant and other candidates while considering his case for compassionate appointment in terms of directions issued in CWP No.9175/2014. The Minutes of 42nd meeting of Compassionate Appointment Committee (hereinafter referred as 'CAC') held on 08.11.2016 have been perused. Alongwith others, the case of the applicant was considered afresh in terms of directions in CWP No.9175/2014 and CAC after considering present financial status and means of livelihood of the dependent family members in the light of DOP&T, MOD/D(Lab) instructions, guidelines observed that his case was not covered under the merit in comparison to other deserving cases, consequently, it was rejected. Alongwith the Minutes of the meeting, the list of the cases considered in the said meeting is also furnished. In the list the points given to each of the cases under consideration are also mentioned. It is observed that the name of the applicant appears at serial No.28 and he had obtained total number of 49 points. The names of all those persons who were granted appointment on compassionate grounds in the said meeting are mentioned in the list at serial Nos. 1 to 13. They all had secured points between 80 to 54 whereas the applicant had secured only 49 total points. All other candidates who were considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and had secured less than 54 points were also not granted appointment on compassionate grounds.

Therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to agitate that principles of natural justice were violated or that the marking system adopted by the respondents to assess the suitability of the candidates for compassionate appointment was unfair. It is observed from the minutes of 42nd meeting of CAC that it had relied upon the MOD/D(Lab) guidelines issued vide letter No.19(3)/2009/D(Lab) dated 22.01.2010 & 14.05.2010 for awarding the merit points considering the penurious conditions of the family based on latest financial/economical condition/number of dependents of the family as on date, latest marital status of the applicant etc. It is also observed in the minutes that while considering belated cases, the Committee relied on DOP&T guidelines, which emphasised that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of a Government servant in order to release them from economic distress. It is also observed therein that in a belated case, the very fact that the family was able to manage somehow all the years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. I do not find any fault in the approach of CAC while considering the cases for compassionate appointment.

In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order since the case of the applicant considering his present financial status and means of livelihood of the dependent family members in terms of the guidelines issued from time to time was not covered under merit in comparison to other deserving candidates. This fact cannot lose sight of that when deceased employee i.e. the father of the applicant died, he was left with only two years four months service so even assuming that he had superannuated after two years 4 months, he would have had got approximately the same financial benefits which his widow received on his death and he would have managed his financial affairs with the same benefits or had looked for some other job after retirement but his children including the present applicant would not have been entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is observed that the deceased employee died on 02.08.2011 and now more than 7 years have passed since then. It cannot be pleaded that the applicant who is aged more than 30 years and is well educated, is without any job and is dependent on the family pension which his mother is getting. So far the daughters of the deceased employee are concerned, nothing has been placed on record as to how they are dependent on the applicant or his mother. The mother is already getting family pension and has received all the financial benefits from the respondents on account of death of the deceased employee. So now the question arises as to who is dependent upon whom and how the applicant is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. This question has not been answered by the applicant and the onus was entirely upon him.

There is no material available on record to suggest that the applicant was financially dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his death. We cannot ignore the fact that the concept of compassionate appointment is related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to release it from economic distress. The applicant has not disclosed as to how he and the other family members of deceased employee have been able to manage some how all these 7 years since after the death of the deceased employee. Admittedly both the applicant and his sister Ms. Sonali S. More are highly educated and are capable of earning their livelihood. There is no material on record that the other sister who was married at the time of death of the deceased employee was in any manner dependent upon the applicant or his mother. It is also important to note that earlier the mother of present applicant had approached for appointment on compassionate grounds for her daughter Ms. Sonali S. More but thereafter her claim was not pursued and the applicant approached the authorities for compassionate appointment. So it is clear that Ms. Sonali S. More has either got some job or has got married and her requirement for compassionate appointment is over. It is also clear from the circumstances of the case that she is no more financially dependent upon the applicant or her mother. As it has already been considered that the applicant is aged 30 years and well qualified as per his own admission, he cannot be considered to be in economic distress. The respondents vide well reasoned order has considered the case of the applicant as per Rules and the relevant OMs and have found him not to be entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds and there is no infirmity in the same.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Application is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.