S. Santhoshkumar vs Union Of India & Ors

Sunil Thomas, Member J

The mother of the applicant while working as sweeper in Khadi Bhavan, M.G. Road, Ernakulam died on 16.08.2007. Claiming that the applicant, her son and the entire family were dependent on the deceased employee for their subsistence, submitted an application dated 20.02.2008 requesting for compassionate appointement. This was rejected by Annexure A-1 reply dated 27.05.11 holding that there was want of number of vacancies and further that the then extant DoP&T norms, provided that the application for compassionate appointment cannot be kept beyond a period of 3 years. Consequently, another application was submitted as Annexure A-2, requesting to reconsider the above order. This was also declined by Annexure A-3 on the same ground. The applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing TA No.4/2016. The relief sought for compassionate appointment was resisted by the respondents contending that the application could be kept alive for a period of 3 years and that there was no vacancy in the regular establishment. It was also contended that when the Committee considered the applicant's case, his case was found to fall under category which was lower in priority and that the applicant could not be considered for compassionate appointment.

By Annexure A-4 order, this Tribunal held that any further categorisation of the aspirants will de hors the scheme. It was observed that it was quite possible that in the event of repeated consideration, if the indigence was still found to be prevailing there may be chances for the appoint for such appointment. This Tribunal quashed the communication by which his representation was rejected and directed the respondents to restore the application for considering the compassionate appointment repeatedly without time limit.

By subsequent order of this Tribunal, produced as Annexure A-6 in Contempt Petition No.75/2018, the respondent was directed to convene a meeting of the Relaxation Committee and to consider the eligibility of the candidates who were in the list. Ultimately, by Annexure-8 order, the application was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not found suitable for any of the vacant posts under Group 'C'.

Aggrieved by the Annexure A-8 order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

The request of the applicant was resisted by the respondents contending that the applicant was found unsuitable as revealed from Annexure R-2(a), which was the minutes of the meeting of the committee for consideration of compassionate appointment. It was also stated that since there was a ban in existence which directed not to appoint any person either Direct Recruitment or on compassionate grounds under the Trading Cadre, it was not possible to appoint any person. It was also stated that the applicant did not fulfil the essential criteria under Regular Cadre. Yet another reason projected was that no vacancies existed under Group 'C'.

It emerges that a revised areas of priorities was issued as Annexure R2(b) by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, dated 28.06.2010. As per the above, revised criteria for determining the priority was fixed and according to the respondent, the applicant falls in Priority No. IX. Item IX relates to death cases of Group 'D' employees whose wards had applied for compassionate appointment having earning members in the family. It is evident from the record that the husband of the deceased was gainfully employed at that point of time, which was not considered in A-4. It seems that this was not brought to the notice of this Tribunal while Annexure A-4 order was passed.

Learned standing counsel for respondents invited my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Ltd. & ors versus Anusree K.B. (Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of compassionate appointment. It was held that compassionate appointment was an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and was in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, appointment is given out of 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.

The guidelines which seems to exist produced as Annexure R2(c) at clause 19 indicates that if there is already an earning member in the family normally appointment on compassionate grounds will not be considered. However, in very deserving cases after considering the size of the family, dependent members etc in priority cases, compassionate appointment may be considered in exceptional cases. No such exceptional case has been made out.

Evidently death occurred in 2007 till now the KVIC could not offer an employment to the applicant inspite of repeated consideration of the request. It emerges that the basic consideration for granting compassionate appointment to a family suddenly put to unexpected serious contingencies, is not established to be in existenc now. Further, even at this point of time, after 15 years, the establishment could not offer an employment. It is also to be noted that at the time of death of the employee the husband of the deceased was working and earning.

Though in Annexure A-4 order it was directed that the application for compassionate appointment may be considered again on the hope that in the event of repeated consideration, if the indigence was found to be prevailing, there may be chances of his appointment. That does not mean that the application for compassionate appointment has to be kept pending till eternity. There must be a point at which the application must be deemed to have become stale, unless the applicant has a case that vacancies are available and appointment is denied malafide. Such a contention is not existing in this case.

Having regard to these facts, I feel that in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not possible to grant any relief to the applicant at this length of time. The OA fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.