Rajesh Kumar vs Department Of Post Office

The applicant has filed this Original Application, claiming the following reliefs:-

"(a) Direct the Respondent to consider the case of the Applicant and grant appointment to the Applicant on compensate grounds on account of the fact that the case of Applicant was that of indigent and admittedly his father who was the only bread earner of the family had died on account of unfortunate accident held on 24.7.2002 while his father was on duty and on account of injury sustained by his father he had succumb to the death on 6.7.2002.

(b) Appointment be given to the Applicant with retrospective benefits with arrears etc. and other increments attached to the post and same has purported reasons assigned in rejecting the case of the Applicant in unreasonable and devoid of merits.

(c) pass such other or further order (s) this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Brief facts as stated by the applicant in his OA are that his father expired on 06.03.2002 while in service leaving behind applicant, daughter and widow. Both the applicant and her sister were unemployed and dependant on the deceased Government servant. Therefore, to overcome the financial hardships, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by the respondent vide communication dated 31.01.2004, inter alia, stating therein that the competent authority had considered the case of the applicant by a Committee constituted for the purpose in the year 2002 and having found him not indigent condition in relation to other cases placed upon it. Thereafter, the applicant has again made a representation on 09.09.2017 requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds but that, too, was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 10.10.2017 on the ground that Circle Relaxation Committee held on 19.12.2003 did not recommend his case for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved with the inaction of the respondent, the applicant has filed the present OA.

Opposing the OA, the respondent has filed their reply in which the they are able to show that the Circle Relaxation Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointment in its meeting held on 19.12.2003 examined the case of the applicant on merits taking into consideration the overall indigent circumstances based on criteria such as the number of dependents, particularly minors, sources of income, terminal benefits received, family liabilities and availability and nature of accommodation whether rented or owned and also against the number of 5% direct recruitment quota vacancies for the year 2002 and did not rightly find the case fit for recommendation for appointment on compassionate grounds. As such, it cannot be said that the case of the applicant was not considered for compassionate appointment.

The respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the matter is time barred but as this is a case of compassionate appointment for which any eligible person can apply innumerable times, this plea is not maintainable.

Law on the subject of compassionate appointment is well settled now that neither can it be sought as a matter of right nor as a line of succession. A person only has right of consideration. So long as the case of the applicant has been considered and rejected on valid grounds, it calls for no interference.

It is also settled law that compassionate appointment can be given only to 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies meant for a year, therefore, naturally all the applicants under this category cannot be given compassionate appointment otherwise it would amount to opening another mode of recruitment de hors the rules.

Since the number of vacancies are limited while number of applications are far more for compassionate appointment, naturally only those applicants who are found to be most deserving looking at their financial condition and other parameters and who come within the number of vacancies meant for compassionate appointment can be given the compassionate appointment.

This Tribunal has also noted the facts that the father of the applicant expired in 2002 and the applicant has filed the present OA in the year 2017, i.e. after fifteen years of death of his father, coupled with the fact that the applicant has completed his graduation from Delhi University and MBA. Hence, finding by the Circle Relaxation Committee that the case of the applicant was not found in indigent condition in relation to other cases is a matter of fact and no grounds to interfere with the same are made out. Further, after communicating the decision of the Compassionate Appointments Committee on 31.01.2004, this OA has been filed by the applicant on 11.12.2017 against that order. Quite clearly, the order of the respondent dated 31.01.2004 sought to be challenged after about 14 years can now be called agitating a stalled matter. In this regard, it would also be relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Electricity Board & Ors. versus Hakim Singh 1997(8) SCC 85 in which the following observations were passed:-

"If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death, one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance - The object of the provisions to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crises befallen the dependants on accounts of the untimely demise of its sole earning member."

In view of above, we find that the request for compassionate appointment has been fully considered as per the rules, by the Compassionate Appointments Committee and there is no irregularity in their consideration. Hence, no case for interference is made out and the OA is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.