Shiva vs Union Of India Through And Ors

The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) set-aside and quash the impugned orders dated 31.03.2013, Annexure A-3 and 03.12.2015 Annexure A-1, being badly vitiated as humbly submitted in the foregoing paras;

(ii) direct/command the Respondents to consider the applicant's case of compassionate appointment on its merits and pass a reasoned and speaking order accordingly.

(iii) direct/command the Respondents to deem the applicant as having been appointed retrospectively when any other candidate, who became eligible and applied after the applicant.

(iv) any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the applicant alongwith heavy costs against the respondents, in the interest of justice."

It is the case of the applicant that his father late Sh. Bahuran Singh, while working as Syce under the respondent no.2, was declared medically unfit/incapacitated for further service and retired from service on 29.10.1993. The applicant has submitted that at the time of retirement of his late father, he was minor, as he was born only on 30.06.1978. The applicant has submitted that when on achieving the age of majority, the applicant had submitted an application dated 29.04.1999 for appointment on compassionate grounds as his family was in serious financial constrains and unable to make both the ends meet but the same was rejected by the respondents on the ground that compassionate appointment can be granted only if vacancy occurs within a year of the date of death of the Government servant and consequently removed his name from the Waiting List. The applicant has submitted that when he had challenged the impugned order, deleting his name from the Waiting List in OA No. 67/2014, the respondents had passed the order dated 16.03.2015, directing him to submit all his documents for consideration of his compassionate appointment because DOPT vide OM dated 16.01.2013 has laid down that there is no time limit for compassionate appointment. The applicant has alleged that in compliance with the aforesaid order of the respondents dated 16.03.2015, he had once again submitted all the documents as desired. The applicant has alleged that respondents again issued another letter dated 31.03.2015 raising certain objections with regard to his date of birth and mentioning of the brother's name, returned all the documents to him with the directions that the same may be completed and re-submitted for further action. In reply to the aforesaid objections raised by the respondents, the applicant informs that he had submitted a representation dated 22.04.2015 in which he has stated that he had submitted all the relevant documents to the office, which includes High School Certificate wherein his date of birth is shown as 30.06.1978 and that is his correct date of birth. The applicant has submitted that in view of the Principle of Law, the date of birth entered in the applicant's Matriculate Certificate is the correct one which should be taken into consideration while considering the case of his compassionate appointment. The applicant has thus challenged the aforesaid impugned order of the respondents in the present OA.

The respondents, while controverting the aforesaid averments of the applicant, have filed their reply in which they have submitted that plea of the applicant that he was minor at the time of retirement of his late father is wrong, as the applicant was 22 years as per date of birth 03.06.1976 in the service record of his late father and second son, namely, Sh. Dharambir was 19 years as per his date of birth, i.e., 12.07.1976 recorded in the service record of his late father. They have further contended that the documents submitted were incomplete and supplementary/additional documents were asked for, vide letter dated 27.09.1999, as many documents were not clear and complete and when the same were not provided by the applicant, his name was removed from the waiting list. The respondents have contended that after a gap of 15 years, he again requested for compassionate appointment and submitted incomplete documents at late date, i.e. on 17.03.2015 and till all documents with required clarifications are not available with the department, they cannot consider the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that the DoPT, vide its OM NO. DoPT OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013, has clarified there is no time limit for considering compassionate appointment's cases and even past cases which were closed, have been ordered to be considered again. Hence, in view of the aforesaid OM, the applicant can, if he so desires, again apply for appointment on compassionate grounds along with duly filled in application giving all the required informations, including all the requisite documents. If any such application is moved by the applicant, the same shall be considered by the respondents by appropriately assessing the financial hardships of the applicant for compassionate appointment in its next meeting in accordance with the aforesaid OM and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of the decision of the Screening Committee on compassionate appointments.

However, as regards the correctness of the documents submitted by the applicant, it is not within the domain of the Tribunal to examine the documents as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nanak Chand v. Delhi Jal Board, 2007(140)DLT 489 which reads as under:-

"14. The mandate of the Supreme Court is very clear from the aforestated judgments that it is not for the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision arrived at by the competent authority while considering the eligibility of an applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and all it can do is to see whether the decision of the competent authority is vitiated. Having scrutinized the cases in hand in the aforesaid background, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the findings of facts and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority."

With the above directions, the OA is dismissed. No costs.