Romesh Chander vs Union of India

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider

and appoint him against any post in the Corporation on compassionate grounds and also to settle and reimburse all pensionary benefits viz. gratuity,

P.P. Fund, leave encashment and Family Pension etc. to him being legal heir of deceased Girdhari Lal. Father of the petitioner, Girdhari Lal was

working as a Welder according to petitioner and WC Beldar according to respondents. He died while in service, therefore petitioner claims to

have a right to be considered and appointed as per rules framed by the Government providing for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Petitioner claims that he approached the respondent number of times and other functionaries of Union of India to grant him this relief, but of no

avail. According to him with a view to save the family from destitution respondents need to be directed to provide employment to him after the

death of sole bread winner of the family. Petitioner has no other source of income, thus it has led to starvation of the family. His further case is that

despite legal notice, Annexure ""A"", when no relief has been given to him by the respondents, he is forced to file this writ petition.

Respondents were put to notice and thereafter writ petition was admitted. Objections have been filed by the respondents. They admit that

Girdhari Lal was in their service but was WC Beldar and not a Weldar. They have specifically stated that all dues in favour of deceased Girdhari

Lal were paid immediately to his widow, as such there is nothing due and payable by respondents as claimed in the writ petition. Plea of the

petitioner that he was assured regarding his engagement on compassionate grounds is specifically denied. Regarding family state of the deceased, it

is specifically pleaded by them that Maya Devi is the widow, whereas Kasturi Lal and Romesh Kumar (petitioner) are his sons. Former is serving

in the Army and family also owns moveable and immovable property.

Petitioner applied for the post of LDC which claim was turned down as far back as on 26th June, 1995, copy whereof is placed on the file as

Annexure ""B"" with the objections. When petitioner again approached after two years vide his application dated 10.3.1997, the same was also

turned down and mother of the petitioner was informed vide communication, copy whereof is filed as Annexure ""C"" with the objections. In the light

of aforesaid pleadings learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by not offering employment to his client, respondents have caused grave

injustice to his client, as such direction needs to be issued in that behalf. On the other hand claim of the petitioner has been repudiated by Shri

Rabstan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. According to him claim of the petitioner stood rejected in the year 1995 itself,

which fact petitioner has purposely withheld in the writ petition. This by itself is a good ground to reject this petition because he made an attempt to

get relief by suppression of, as well as by withholding of a fact which has material bearing on this case. In addition to this, writ petition suffers from

delay and laches, reason being that the subsequent rejection does not improve the case of petitioner. Right if any (though he stated that this position

is not admitted) accrued to the petitioner in the year 1995 and he waited till 4th February, 2000 when present writ petition was filed. Thus

according to him petitioner had sustained for more than 41/2 years after the rejection of his earlier claim. On this ground he is not entitled to any

relief.

It is by now well settled that so far matter relating to compassionate appointment is concerned, it comes as a measure of providing immediate

relief to the family of deceased employee after his death. It can neither be claimed as a matter of right nor is an alternate source of entry into

service, muchness claiming desired employment. Recruitment to all services is governed by the rules framed in that behalf as per Article 309 of the

Constitution of India and Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Both Central Government as well as State Government have

framed rules/policy as a welfare measure keeping in view its duty as a welfare State, of course within the framework of such rules to offer

employment on compassionate grounds. Such appointments are in fact in the nature of exception to the general rule i.e. rules relating to recruitment

to the post offered to such an incumbent.

Here it may also be observed that a person who is appointed on compassionate grounds cannot be permitted to say that he should be given an

appointment to his liking. If the offer of the Government is not acceptable, the person concerned can decline the same and take up his chance by

competing in the open market. Secondly claims after lapse of sufficient time during which the family as well as a person like petitioner had sustained

himself also disentitles him from claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been judicially held that where claims were made after

fairly long time as in the present case, claim for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. Underlying reason is that with the death of bread

winner of the family it should not be left high and dry with a begging bowl in the street and that is the object sought to be achieved and is the sole

purpose and intendment of such claims/rules. For taking this view see Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, 1998(1)

S.C.T. 511 : 1997(8) SCC 85; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, 1996(2) SCT 207 (SC) : 1996(1) SCC 301 ; S. Mohan v.

Government of T.N. and another, 1998(9) SCC 485; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, 1996(2) SCT 778 (SC) :

1996(8) SCC 23 and State of Bihar and others v. Samsuz Zoha etc., 1996(4) SCT 51(SC) : AIR 1996 SC 1961 .

Applying the aforesaid tests to the facts of present case, it is clear that petitioner is not at all entitled to grant any relief in the present writ petition.

This is in addition to the fact that for reasons best known to him he did not disclose that his claim firstly stood rejected as far back as in the year

1995 and thereafter in the year 1997. The omission is not unintentional and reason for it is not difficult to find. Had he pleaded the fact of rejection

of two occasions, may be his claim would have been dismissed at the very threshold without notice being issued to the respondents. In this behalf it

may also be observed that exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K is

equitable and discretionary. Before invoking the same a litigant like petitioner must come to court with clean hands. Besides this, it must also be

kept in view that one who seeks equity must give equity. On this ground also claim made in the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

So far the matter relating to release of pensionary benefits as claimed in the writ petition is concerned, respondents have specifically stated that

all benefits available have been released in favour of widow of deceased, i.e. mother of present petitioner. As such on this ground also claim made

in the writ petition has no merit. From whatever angle case of the petitioner may be viewed there is no merit in it.

No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.