AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mallika Arya, Member A
The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure A/3) passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was rejected.
Briefly, the facts of the case of the applicant are that the father of the applicant was serving the respondents’ department on the post of gangman. In the year 2002 due to illness, father of the applicant was declared unfit for service and he was granted VRS from service. He was expired in the year 2006. At the material time the applicant was a minor. On attaining age of 18 years, applicant submitted an application under RTI for procuring information about his compassionate appointment wherein he was asked to submit the application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, applicant submitted an application (Annexure A/4) for grant of compassionate appointment along with the documents evidencing requisite educational qualifications (Annexure A/6). The application was followed by a subsequent application (Annexure A/5) by applicant as well as his mother. Respondents rejected the claim of applicant on the ground that the application was not preferred within the stipulated time. The applicant's father never submitted any application and therefore the claim was rejected. It was further observed that on attaining the age of majority by first child an application was required to be filed which was not done. Therefore the applicant was not entitled for compassionate appointment. This observation is not sustainable because it was specifically pleaded by applicant that he was minor at the time of death of his father. Ku. Phulwati (applicant’s sister) did not submit any application as she got married while she was a minor, therefore the clause did not apply to her. Previously, the applicant preferred an original application bearing no 179/2020 before this tribunal which was withdrawn with the liberty to file afresh. A copy of the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Original Application No. 179/2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/7. The policy for compassionate appointment provides a time limit for granting compassionate appointment which is normally 5 years from the date of death of the Govt. servant but it also provides for an exception in extraordinary circumstances because the fact remains that the compassionate appointment is meant to extend a helping hand towards the family. Undisputedly it is not a matter of right but the fact remains that the time limit can be relaxed as every applicant has a justifiable right for consideration. A copy of RBE No. 144/2000 is annexed as Annexure A/8.
The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that applicant's father Shri Ramhet S/o Mitthoo while working as Gangman under SE(PW)/W/GWO was declared medically unfit in all classes with effect from 05.05.2002 and retired from service on 06.06.2002 after his medical invalidation. Subsequently, Shri Ramhet died on 24.10.2006. Along with the pension papers submitted by the deceased, he had submitted details of his family members in Form 6, (Annexure A/2) indicating Smt. Mahadevi, wife (DOB 31.05.1961), Rajveer, son (DOB 06.01.1995) and Ku. Phoolwati, daughter (DOB 12.03.1992). Thus, at the time of death of the applicant’s father, the age of mother of applicant was about 45 years 5 months, daughter (sister of applicant) 14 years, 7 month and the applicant 11 years 9 month. The deceased after his retirement did not submit any application for compassionate appointment of his wife or got registered the name of his minor son. The applicant submitted an application dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure A/4) wherein, while seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, he stated that the deceased had left behind three daughters, one son besides wife; at the time of the death of his father he was a minor and now he has attained majority. The mother of applicant also submitted an application on 05.10.2015 (Annexure A/5) requesting for appointment of her son (applicant). The decision of competent authority was communicated vide letter dated 09.11.2015. The scheme of compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to family of an employee subjected to financial distress due to sudden loss of income consequent to his/her death or retirement due to medical invalidation. Requests for appointment on compassionate grounds are thus, expected to be made immediately after the event warranting such appointment. As per Railway Board's letter dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure R/3), a period of five (05) years has been laid down as a normal time limit within which the request for compassionate appointment can be considered. In cases where widow is unable to take up appointment herself and the children are minor, this limit can be relaxed for 1st son/1 daughter, depending on merits of the case. The father of the applicant, in the first instance, after his retirement on medical invalidation on 06.06.2002, during his life time did not apply for compassionate appointment of his wife or his 1st son /1st daughter. Even, the mother of applicant who was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds did not apply for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband on 24.10.2006. The family of deceased has survived during these long years is itself an indication that they did not want to avail of the benefits of scheme of compassionate appointment. In the background of these facts, the case of applicant for compassionate appointment was rejected by the competent authority vide impugned order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure A/1).
I have perused the records and the contentions made by the applicant and the respondents in this Original Application are taken into consideration.
It is pertinent to mention that the applicant had filed an O.A. earlier, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure A/7). The father of the applicant was serving on the post of gangman in the respondent department. He fell ill and declared medically unfit for service and was given VRS in the year 2002. He passed away in the year 2006.
6.1 Respondents have issued numerous circulars on compassionate appointments which inter alia include the following:
Railway Board letter number E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 18.01.2000
Letter number E(NG)II/99/RC-1/Gen.9/JCM-DC dated 15.02.2000
letter number E(NG)II/98/RC-1/64 dated 28.07.2000
6.2 Para 2 of the RBE Circular 144/2000 dated 28.07.2020 (supra) reads as follows:
“2. The matter has been further considered by the Board and it has been decided that the General Manager may also be authorised to consider the requests of compassionate appointment in respect of cases up to 20 years old in the following types of cases subject to the condition that these powers will be exercised by him personally and not to be delegated further:
(i) Compassionate appointment of 1st son/1st daughter where request has been made after a period of 5 years from the date of medical invalidation.
(ii) Compassionate appointment of other than 1st sone/1st daughter, where requests have been made after a period of 5 years from the date of death.
(iii) Consideration of application submitted more than 2 years after the candidate became major.
I observe that the various circulars issued by the respondents detailing the scheme for compassionate appointment from time to time are clear and do not suffer from any ambiguity. The case of the applicant has been considered by the respondents in the light of these circulars and has been rejected. The applicant is trying to interpret these circulars by reading between the lines which does not merit consideration by this Bench.
It is also pertinent to mention that applicant’s father was given VRS in the year 2002 on medical grounds, but then, no one applied for compassionate appointment on his behalf and thereafter he died in the year 2006. It is a fact that the family has survived after the death of the deceased employee for a period of 13 years with their own resources.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal 1994 4 SCC 138 (1994) 27 ATC 537 has pointed out that appointment in public services on compassionate ground has been carved out as an exception in the interest of justice, to the general rule that appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit and no other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. A compassionate appointment is made out on 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 and the whole object of granting such appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. This Court has also laid down that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be given in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines that have been framed by the authority concerned and no person can claim appointment on compassionate ground in disregard of such rules or such guidelines.
For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole [1 (1989) 4 SCC 468: 1989 SCC (L&S) 662: (1989)11 ATC 878: (1989) 4 SLR 327 142] breadwinner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after crisis is over.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [(2008) 15 SCC 560 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 378] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in its para 15 has held as under:
“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefore viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.”
In view of the observations made above, I find no merit in the case of the applicant.
Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.