Surender Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby his petition for grant of appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:­

(i) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ, direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondents by quashing and setting aside the rejection letter dated 9.9.2018 i.e. Annexure A­6 passed by the respondents wherein the candidature of the present petition has been wrongly rejected. The same may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play as there is error apparent on the face of record.

(ii) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ, direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondents by quashing and setting aside the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26.2.2020 i.e. Annexure P­ 10.

(iii) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ, direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for employment on compassionate ground under the kith and kin policy which has been attached with this original application.

2 The father of the petitioner was working in the Postal Department and serving as GDSMD when he unfortunately expired on 11.6.2014. Immediately thereafter elder brother of the petitioner i.e. Satpal, applied for appointment on compassionate basis. His case was considered and thereafter rejected in the year 2014 itself.

3 It is six years' later that the petitioner being younger son of the deceased employee, moved an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the case of compassionate appointment for one of the dependents of the deceased GDS Employee i.e. Satpal Kumar, stood already considered by the Committee for Compassionate Engagement and there was no provision in the rule to reconsider the case.

4 The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal for redressal of his grievances, however, petition filed by him came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2020. Hence, the instant petition.

5 It is contended by Mr. Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents­Department was under legal obligation being employer to provide employment to the petitioner as per aim and object of the policy and since the object of the policy was not kept in mind, therefore, not only action of the department, but even order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable.

6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7 Certain basic principles for grant of compassionate appointment are by now well settled. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a fairly recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and anr. vs. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646, wherein it was observed as under:­

"10. Certain basic principles in regard to the grant of compassionate appointment are settled by the decisions of this Court. In Director of Education (Secondary) v Pushpendra Kumar, this Court while discussing the object of compassionate appointment observed thus:

"8. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread­earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment..."

In State Bank of India v Raj Kumar, this Court while discussing the claim over compassionate appointment held as follows:

"8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant." (Emphasis supplied)

In V Sivamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court summarised the principles relating to compassionate appointment as follows:

"18..... (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well­recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies.

* * *

(c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies..." (Emphasis supplied)

The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death while in service. Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent, for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees. Hence, before a claim for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family of a deceased employee or is granted by the State, the employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a trite principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. Even where there is a scheme of compassionate appointment, an application for engagement can only be considered in accordance with and subject to fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the scheme......."

8 Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that once the case of the elder brother of the petitioner has already been rejected, then there was no occasion muchless even provision to consider the case of the petitioner, who was similarly situated like his brother.

9 Entertaining such request from each of the kins of the deceased employee would only be burdening the department and may be even the dockets of this Court.

10 What is required to be seen, as observed above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread­earner, which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Therefore, once it was found that family of the deceased employee was not left in penury and was not without any means of livelihood, then the respondents could not have even entertained muchless considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

11 As repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, rather it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be based on merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process.

12 The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim in such circumstances, is not confined to an individual member of the family, but the entire family of the deceased employee.

13 Therefore, in the given circumstances, there is no error muchless an illegality in dismissing the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned order.

14 In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.