Sanju Kumari vs General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. & Ors.

B.K. Shrivastava, Member J

This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 01.02.2021 against the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 4 rejecting the application of applicant filed by her on 16.10.2020 for compassionate appointment.

It is an admitted fact that the father of applicant (Sanju Kumari) named Fateh Singh was working on the post of “Helper-II” and after the death of father, her mother Smt. Anek Shri got the compassionate appointment. She was working on the post of “Helper-II”, C&W, Sink Line, Agra Cantt. in Mechanical department under the Office of respondent No. 3. The mother Smt. Anek Shri was also expired on 25.01.2020. Thereafter, the applicant submitted the application on 16.10.2020 for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.10.2020 by respondent No. 4. As per applicant, the mother was died leaving behind three daughters including the applicant herself. All three are married daughters. The sisters of applicant Smt. Sarvesh Kumari and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari are residing with their husband at Sujanpur Chamraula, Agra and Nagla Rami Sikhra, Sadabad, District Hathras respectively. The applicant is also married with Shri Sovendra Kumar, resident of “Purvavar, Ruru Khurd, District Auraiya”, but after the death of father, she was residing with her mother in the Government quarter, allotted by the railways. After the death of her mother, the quarter has been vacated.

As per applicant, she was entitled to get the compassionate appointment, but the respondents without considering the financial position of applicant as well as other aspects of the case, illegally rejected the application in an arbitrary manner. The applicant being a “married daughter” of deceased employee is also entitled to get the compassionate appointment. In this regard, applicant also cited the Judgment dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another Writ – C No. 60881 of 2015 with other connected matters, and another Judgment dated 15.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Manjul Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ Appeal No. 10928 of 2020.

On the other side, the respondents opposed the claim of applicant by filing the counter affidavit on 20.05.2022. It is submitted that the applicant was not dependent upon the deceased employee. She is a married lady and dependent upon her husband. Therefore, she was not entitled for compassionate appointment. The respondents did not commit any mistake by rejecting the claim of applicant for compassionate appointment

By order dated 27.10.2020, the claim of applicant has been denied. It is stated in the aforesaid order: -

Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid letter that the claim of applicant has been rejected upon the ground that the deceased lady employee was the mother of three daughters and all daughters are married. Any of them was not dependent upon the deceased employee.

The ruling cited by the applicant (supra) lay down the principle that the married daughter is also entitled to get the compassionate appointment. But, it does not mean that the blank cheque has been issued in favour of the married daughter. Other circumstances and the principles of compassionate appointment should also be seen.

It is established by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. The object of Compassionate appointment has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases i.e. Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., 1998(2) SCT 791 = (1998) 5 SCC 192, V.Shivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [2008] 13 SCC 730, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077], Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr.,2012[3] ESC 392[SC] = [2012] 11 SCC 307, State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, 2013 [4] SCT 434 = 2013 [5] AWC 5062 [SC], Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh, [2013] 1 UPLBEC 357, MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013[4] SCT 541 = AIR 2013 SC 3365, Local Administration Department & Anr. Vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011[2] SCT 763 = AIR 2011 SC 1880, Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors.,2012[3] SCT 475 = 2012 [7] SCC 248, H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653. Therefore looking to the aforesaid cases it is established law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, 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, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

If, we examine this case then, it cannot believe that the applicant was the dependent upon the deceased mother. The applicant is the married lady and her husband Sovendra Kumar is the resident of Purvavar, Ruru Khurd, District Auraiya. In para-4.5 of the O.A., the applicant stated that after the death of father, she was residing with her mother in the Railway Colony in which the railway quarter was allotted to the mother. In para-4.7 of the O.A., she also stated that after the death of mother, the quarter was vacated and she is residing at Purvavar, Ruru Khurd, District Auraiya. It means that the applicant is residing with her husband because the address of husband is the same, as stated in para-4.5 of the O.A.

The applicant did not plead or did not submit any document for showing any matrimonial dispute with her husband. Therefore, in normal course, it may be presumed that the relation between husband and wife are normal and they are residing together and enjoying their married life.

The contention of applicant that after the death of father, she was residing with her mother cannot be accepted. The mother was an employee who was serving in the railways. Therefore, there was no any necessity to reside with the mother, leaving the husband. Any supportive document also not submitted by the applicant showing the fact that she was separated from her husband and was residing with the mother and she was totally dependent upon the mother. If the lady is married then, it is the presumption of law that she is dependent upon her husband and not upon her mother. Except three married daughters, no any family member is available. Therefore, it can be said that there was no any financial crisis before the family after the death of deceased employee. The position may be different if there are several dependent of the deceased employee including the minor dependent. In that case if the other members are available and not capable, then, the “married-daughter” may also be considered for compassionate appointment. But the aforesaid position is not found in this case. Hence, the ruling cited by the applicant does not help her.

Looking to the aforesaid discussions, in view of this Court, the applicant was not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. Hence, the respondents did not commit any mistake by rejecting the claim of applicant.

In view of the discussions made above, the O.A. is dismissed.