Sanjay Kumar vs F.C.I. and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the validity and legality of the letter (Annex. 8) dated 12.12.2002 whereby the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment in the respondent corporation in place of his father Shri Lilu Ram, who expired while in service of the respondent corporation was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order whereby the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment was dismissed does not disclose any reasons whatsoever and thus, the same deserves to be quashed. He contends that the petitioner had submitted an application complete in all respects whilst praying for compassionate appointment. He relies on the office memorandum dated 9.10.1998 issued by the Central Government whereby a scheme was promulgated for giving appointment to the dependent family member of a government servant dying in harness. Learned counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment is totally contrary to the objectives of the aforesaid scheme and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He submits that the reason given by the respondents in the reply for rejecting the application that the application was incomplete, inasmuch as, the income details of the petitioner''s brother were not disclosed is also unjust and baseless, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not asked to furnish information in that regard. He contends that the plea of the respondents that the reserved posts against compassionate appointment scheme were filled on first come first served basis and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed is also not tenable. No justification is available to support this plea. He contends that no details have been placed on record to show that any such procedure was adopted and if so then the basis thereof is not disclosed in the reply. He submits that it has not been shown as to when the other applicants, who were given appointment in precedence over the petitioner submitted their claims for being given compassionate appointment and thus, the action of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. He thus prays that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, Shri RK Singhal learned counsel for the respondents contended that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was examined by the committee formed by the respondent corporation and after due examination of the record, it was found that the family of the deceased employee was not in a state of penury. The petitioner, while submitting the application for compassionate appointment did not disclose the income details of his elder brother. Terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,65,988/- were paid to the widow of the deceased upon his death. The family also owned agricultural land measuring 12 Bighas and thus, after considering and evaluating the record, it was decided not to accord compassionate appointment to the petitioner. He further contends that large number of applications received for compassionate appointment were processed together and a conscious decision was taken for rejecting the petitioner''s case. He further contends that challenge was laid to the very same process by another candidate named Kamal Singh by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 638/2003. The procedure adopted by the respondents in collecting the applications and thereafter denying compassionate appointment to the said candidate on count of non-availability of vacancies was upheld by the court in the said case. He further relies on the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6618/2005) decided on 13.10.2006 and submits that the facts of the case at hand are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.

The law is well settled that appointment on compassionate basis is not as a matter of right. Such appointments are made in order to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee, who dies in harness so as to prevent the family from the state of penury and to tide it over the sudden financial crisis. The Hon''ble Apex Court laid down this proposition in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .

Specific guidelines have been laid down by the FCI to examine the matters of compassionate appointment and in the case at hand also, the applications of a large number of candidates were clubbed together and were considered on first come first serve basis. The record, which has been produced by the learned counsel for the FCI for perusal of the court shows that ample deliberations were made by the committee formed for examining the cases of the incumbents, who had applied for compassionate appointment. It is a settled principle of law that the court while examining the matter in writ jurisdiction cannot sit over the conclusions of the inquiry committee as if it were a court of appeal. This court in Kamal Singh''s case examined the very proceedings of the same appointment process of the respondent corporation wherein 367 applications were decided for appointment on compassionate ground against 107 available posts. In almost identical facts, this Court rejected the writ petition preferred by the applicant Kamal Singh and turned down the prayer for compassionate appointment. It was observed by the court that the case of Kamal Singh was rejected by the committee as Shri Kamal Singh was the fourth son of the deceased out of 7 sons and the status of the three elder brothers of Kamal Singh was not disclosed. In the case at hand also, one of the reasons for rejecting the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment was because he chose not to disclose the income of his elder brother. As a consequence, no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity is shown in the action of the respondents in not bestowing compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

The writ petition thus being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.