Ravi vs Chakrata Cantt District Dehradun & others

V.K. Bist, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the application

of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected, on the ground that, at the time of death, the age of the father of the petitioner was

59 years 07 months 03 days, whereas as per the policy the Rule for grant of compassionate appointment will be applicable only in respect of those

dependant of the deceased employee, who died before the age of 55 years, and in the case of Group-D employee before 57 years. Further, prayer has

been made to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

The case of the petitioner is that, the father of the petitioner was working as Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) Group-D post under respondent no.1. He

died in harness on 04.02.2012. An application was moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 16.03.2015. Same was rejected by the

respondent no.1 on 21.04.2015.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier scheme of compassionate appointment was issued on 25.04.2000, in which

there was a provision that dependant of Group-D employee, who died before the completion of 57 years, is entitled for the compassionate

appointment. He further contended that subsequently on 18.07.2013, another scheme was introduced by the respondent in which there is no such

condition of 57 years. Relevant Rules of scheme 2013 is as follows:-

“To Whom Applicable

(A) of a Cantonment Board employee who-

(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or

(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 or the corresponding provision in the CFSR, 1937 before

attaining the age of 55 years (57 Years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ employees); or

(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 before attaining the age of 55 years (57 Years of erstwhile Group

‘D’ Cantonment Board employee).

Note I “Dependant Family Memberâ€​ means:

(a) spouse; or

(b) son (including adopted son); or

(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or

(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Cantonment Board employee.

Who was wholly depondent on the Cantonment Board employee at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may

be.

Note II “Cantonment Board Employee†for the purpose of these instructions means a Cantonment Board employee appointed on regular basis

and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis.

Note III “Re-employmentâ€​ does not include employment of ex-serviceman before the normal age of retirement in a Cantonment Board.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment, as

at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, the age of the father of the petitioner was more than 57 years. He further submitted that

petitioner cannot get the benefit of new scheme dated 18.07.2013, as his father died during the applicability of Old Scheme. He also submitted that

petitioner has not challenged the clause of Old Scheme.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the schemes. I find that in both the schemes time for

applying for compassionate appointment is five years from the date of the death of the deceased. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on

04.02.2012 and petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.03.2015. As per the scheme, the petitioner could apply within a period of five

years, i.e. on or before 04.02.2017. He applied on 16.03.2015, therefore, the date when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment is

subsequent to the date when the new scheme was introduced. In my view petitioner is entitled for the benefit which has been provided in the

subsequent scheme dated 18.07.2013.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 21.04.2015 is hereby quashed.

Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, as per the new scheme dated 18.07.2013 within a period of three months

from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.