Subodh Kumar vs State of Punjab and others

Challenge in the instant petition is to the memo dated 1.4.2014

at Annexure P-7, issued by the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies &

Consumer Affairs Department, State of Punjab and whereby the claim of the

petitioner seeking appointment on a compassionate basis, has been declined.

Brief facts which are not in dispute may be noticed.

Father of the petitioner was serving on the post of Inspector

Grade-II under the Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Punjab.

He died in harness on 24.5.2004. An application seeking appointment on

compassionate basis was submitted by the petitioner on 29.6.2004. It is

such application that has been considered and has not found favour in the

light of impugned memo dated 1.4.2014.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Perusal of the impugned memo would reveal that the basis for

declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis

is two fold. (i) That wife of the deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner is a

Govt. employee and (ii) the family of the deceased has other sources of

income.

Appended along with the reply filed on behalf of the State at

Annexure R-3 is the relevant policy dated 21.11.2002 containing the

scheme for compassionate appointment.

Clause 6 of the scheme governs "Eligibility" and clarifies that

to be eligible for appointment on compassionate basis the family in question

would have to be determined as indigent and in such a state so as to require

immediate assistance to be saved from financial destitution. Clause 6

obligates the authority concerned to consider whether the family of the

deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from

employee''s death.

Clause 11 would also be relevant for the controversy in hand

and envisages a situation where there is already an earning member in the

family of the deceased. Under clause 11 the presence of an earning member

cannot be taken as an absolute bar for considering a claim for

compassionate appointment and in deserving cases keeping in view the

number of dependents assets and liabilities left by the deceased Govt.

servant, income of the earning member as also his/her liabilities as also the

fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the Govt. servant

and whether he/she would not be a source of support for other members of

the family have to be kept in view.

In the present case the application seeking compassionate

appointment having been filed by the petitioner the same was duly

processed. This would be apparent from the documents placed on record by

the petitioner himself. At Annexure P-2 is a report from the Deputy

Commissioner, Rohtak regarding ownership of any landed property and in

such report it has been recited that the mother of the petitioner has a plot

admeasuring 127 sq. yards and upon which a house is constructed.

Furthermore, at Annexure P-3 is also a report from the Deputy

Commissioner, Rohtak on the subject of issuance of dependency certificate

and which reflects that the wife of the deceased employee i.e. mother of the

petitioner was a teacher under the State Govt. That apart, even the proforma

filled up by the petitioner himself seeking appointment on compassionate

basis (Annexure P-1) would reveal that his mother at the relevant point of

time i.e. the year of demise of the father of the petitioner was 51 years old.

In other words, she still had 7 years of Govt. service prior to attaining the

age of superannuation.

In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that the competent authority has considered the application of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and in the

light of the relevant policy and has rejected the same by giving out valid and

cogent reasons.

It is by now well settled that compassionate appointment is not

a right. It is a concession and an exception to the normal mode of

recruitment and appointment to a post in a service. The objective of grant

of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sudden financial crisis that

has fallen upon the family of a Govt. employee, who has died in harness.

In the facts of the present case counsel for the petitioner has not

disputed that the mother of the petitioner was a Govt. employee and also

owned immovable property i.e. a residential house constructed upon a plot

admeasuring 127 sq. yards.

Counsel has not advanced any submission as regards case of

the petitioner having not been considered in terms of the relevant policy

governing compassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure R-3)

along with the written statement.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would interject to place

reliance upon a judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi

Devi and another Vs. Central Bank of India & others, 2008(2), S.C.T, 319

to contend that the petitioner and his siblings have faced hardship on

account of the demise of their father and as per dictum laid down by the

Division Bench, if, the financial position and assets of the family are

meager, still, claim for compassionate appointment should have been

accepted.

The reliance placed by counsel upon the judgement in Laxmi

Devi''s case (supra) is completely misplaced.

Facts of such case were that the deceased employee i.e. Surat

Singh Lamba was working as a Gunman in the Central Bank of India. He

left behind his widow Laxmi Devi and a minor son. Claim for

compassionate appointment raised by the widow was rejected on the ground

that Laxmi Devi was earning Rs.974/- per month on account of interest on

the amount of Rs.1.68 lacs that had been released towards terminal benefits

and a family pension of Rs.2891/- per month was also being drawn. A total

income of Rs.3865/- per month had been taken into account by the Central

Bank of India to deny compassionate appointment and it was against such

factual premise that the Division Bench had intervened.

The facts of the present case are totally distinguishable. The

family of the petitioner is not surviving on any terminal/retiral benefits.

Rather on the date of demise of the father of petitioner, his mother was a

govt. employee working as a teacher under the Education Department and

had 7 long years of service left prior to retirement. Family also owned and

was in occupation of a residential house. Family of the petitioner, as such,

could not be viewed to be in a state of penury.

In view of the discussion above, no infirmity is found in the

impugned memo rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment.

Petition is dismissed.