Ravi Kumar vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the judgment dated 19.1.2011, Annexure P-2, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the Original Application filed by him has been dismissed. He has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give him appointment on compassionate grounds, on a post commensurate to his qualifications.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that Tarlok Singh, father of the petitioner, who was working as Operator Tele-communication in the Custom (Preventive) Commission-orate, died on 5.11.2005 leaving behind five children and a widow. In order to mitigate the hardship of the family of the deceased who dies in harness, the Government of India framed a policy dated 9.10.1988 where a provision was made to offer appointment to a dependent of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.

In due course of time, service benefits were released and family pension was fixed by the respondent-department. An application was thereafter submitted by Ravinder Kumar, elder son of the deceased seeking appointment in terms of the above policy. On 21.22007, mother of the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the application of said Ravinder Kumar on the ground that he was not maintaining them properly. She even changed her nomination in favour of Babita Rani. As the case for compassionate appointment had not yet been finalized and meanwhile the petitioner became major, the widow of the deceased moved an application dated 4.2.2010, inter alia, stating mat as her family was facing hardship her another son, i.e. the petitioner, may be given appointment on compassionate ground. When the widow of the deceased had made an application for cancellation of the application moved by Ravinder Kumar, all other children of the deceased had by means of their respective affidavits relinquished their legal claim in favour of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

When after a long wait, no substantial action was taken by the Government, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.5.2010 for redressal of his grievance regarding finalization of the case for compassionate appointment. Still dismayed by the non-action, the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 7976 of PB-2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ''Tribunal"). The said application was disposed of on consensual basis by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2010, (Annexure A-8), with a direction to the respondent-Department to take a decision in the matter in the light of the policy under reference, within one month from the date of the order.

The petitioner claims to have served a legal notice on the respondents on 29.11.2010. In response thereto, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 7.12.2010 on the ground of delay and further in view of the fact that the widow of the deceased had already received a sum of Rs. 6,14,093/-and was being paid family pension to the tune of Rs. 5,100/- per month.

The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No. 43/PB/2011 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 7.12.2010 on the grounds that the same was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the policy in question. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the said application of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 19.1.2011, Annexure P-2. This is how the petitioner is before this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

The petitioner had sought appointment on compassionate ground, viz. on account of death of his father, Tarlok Singh, who expired on 5.11.2005 during the course of his employment in the Custom (Preventive) Commissionerate, Amritsar. The Tribunal while declining the claim of the petitioner noticed that initially Ravinder Kumar, the elder brother of the petitioner, had sought appointment on compassionate grounds and had submitted application which was, however, declined by holding that he was not eligible. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner vide application dated 21.2.2007 also sought cancellation of her son Ravinder Kumar''s application, alleging that he was neglecting her and the family and was even residing separately. Thereafter, she sought employment of the petitioner and moved application dated 4.2.2010 in this regard. But the application made by the petitioner was also declined, on 7.12.2010. The case of the brother of the petitioner was declined with the following observations:

Sh. Ravinder Kumar s/o late Sh. Trilok Singh, OTC who expired on 5.11.2005, in view of financial position of the family as declared in affidavit submitted, the Welfare Committee decided that it is not possible to offer compassionate appointment to the applicant and his case be finally closed being the 3rd year as the widow has got pensionary benefit of Rs. 6,14,093/- and family pension of Rs. 5,100/- p.m.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to dispute that his mother, i.e. the widow of the deceased, has already received all the monetary benefits that flew on account of death of Tarlok Singh and she has also been receiving family pension at the rate of Rs. 5,100/- per month. Moreover, the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner drew support from a decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 525 wherein, it was laid down in unequivocal terms mat the whole object of granting compassionate appointment was to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to protect the family of the deceased from financial destitution,, but such appointment could not be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis.

In view of the above, we do not find any error of law or perversity in the approach adopted by the Tribunal in declining the claim of the petitioner. Finding no ground to interfere, we dismiss the writ petition in limine.