Tilak Raj vs Union Of India And Ors

One Sh. Jagminder Singh was posted as a Postal Assistant.

He unfortunately died in harness on 05.07.2008. Thereafter, his widow Smt. Raj Bala applied for compassionate ground appointment for her younger son Sh. Vinod. This request was considered  by  the  respondents  for  the  vacancy  year  2010-11.

However, the case of the applicant was rejected, vide order dated 04.07.2011, on account of lower merit vis-a-vis other candidates. This order reads as under:

"Your application for compassionate appointment was received in this office in the year 2009/2010 for consideration by the Circle relaxation committee. The meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee was held on 09.06.2011. Your case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee against 5% DR Quota vacancies of 2010 in Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant/LDC/Postman/MTS cadre as per provisions of guidelines on the subject under which points were allotted to eight attributes of comparative statement like amount of pension, terminal benefits received, amount of monthly income, cost of movable/immovable property, number of dependents, number of marriageable daughters, number of minor children, number of years of left over service. Then, 15 points were added wherever widows applied for compassionate appointment. Allocation of points & total of points of each applicant were mentioned in the list of cases (comparative statement). Based on this list, the applicants were selected as per total points, limited to the number of 5% DR Quota vacancies for the year 2010. You have obtained total points, far below the total points of last selected applicant in the cadre. Therefore, you case has not been recommended for compassionate appointment by the Circle Relaxation Committee."

Before Sh. Vinod"s case could be considered again, he unfortunately died on 25.02.2012. Smt. Raj Bala thereafter made another request dated 21.05.2012 to consider compassionate ground appointment for her elder son, Sh. Tilak Raj, the applicant of the instant OA. There was no response to this representation.

Accordingly, in due course a legal notice was served on the respondents on 24.10.2018. The request to consider compassionate ground appointment for the applicant has since been rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 30.10.2018, on the ground that Sh. Vinod"s case was decided in his life time. This order reads as under:

"Sub:     Legal notice of for appointment on Compassionate ground of Sh. Tilak Raj, S/o late Sh. Jagminder Singh bEx. PA in Rohini PO.

Please refer to your Legal notice dated 24-10-2018, received in this office on 25-10-2018 regarding consideration of request for job on Compassionate Ground.

In this connection, it is intimated that the case of Vinod Kumar S/o late Sh. Jagminder Singh Ex.PA in Rohini PO was received in this office in the year 2010 from concerned unit for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. The case was considered by Circle relaxation Committee along with other similar cases held on 09-06-2011 against 5% DR vacancies quota for compassionate appointment for year 2010, as per existing instructions on the subject. The case was not recommended by CRC as the points obtained by the applicant were far less than the points obtained by the last selected candidate. The applicant was informed through Head of Unit Concerned.

As per the legal notice, it is mentioned that the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar expired on 25-02-2012 and another son Sh. Tilak Raj wants to apply for appointment on compassionate appointment. In this connection it is intimated that the case for Compassionate appointment of Sh. Vinod Kumar was decided before his death. As such the case cannot be reconsidered as per ruling on the subject."

Feeling aggrieved at this rejection, the instant OA has been preferred by Sh. Tilak Raj and in keeping with the family condition, the applicant had sought following relief:

"an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground as per rules and instructions on the subject with all consequential benefits."

No interim relief has been sought.

Per contra, the respondents opposed the OA. Following averment has been made in their counter reply:

5.1 That the case of brother of the applicant has already been duly considered as per prevailing rules and guidelines on the subject by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) constituted for the purpose for the approved vacancies of 2010 in its meeting held on 09.06.2011 but not recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the case of the applicant was not considered as per rules as the case of one family member has already been considered earlier.

5.2 That there is no such rule in the DOP&T guidelines/instructions for reconsideration of the case in the name of the same applicant or in the name of other dependent family member of the deceased employee, if the case has already been considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee earlier.

The  respondents  have  also  relied  upon  a  judgment  by Hon"ble Apex Court dated 04.05.1994 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 wherein it is held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period of time and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

6.1 The respondents also relied upon another judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by Hon"ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.3687/2019 titled  Rajesh Kumar vs. Department of Posts wherein writ was dismissed against the petitioner with the following observations:

"2. The petitioner"s father died in harness on 06.07.2002. The petitioner sought compassionate appointment in the year 2004, which was rejected in the same year. His representation was finally rejected on 31.01.2004. He made another application for compassionate appointment on 09.09.2017, which too was rejected on 10.10.2017. He then approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application, which too had been rejected by the Tribunal.

Compassionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment. It is provided as immediate succour to the family of a Government servant which loses its bread-winner. The petitioner"s application had initially been rejected in the year 2004. There was no impending financial urgency to grant him compassionate appointment.

In these circumstances, the fresh application preferred by him in the year 2017 and the Original Application preferred by him upon rejection of the said application, were completely misplaced.

Dismissed."

In response to this, the applicant pleaded that the judgment dated 24.04.2019 (para 6.1 supra) relied upon by the respondents, is distinguishable. In that referred case, the case was rejected on 31.01.2004 and thereafter another application was made on 09.09.2017, i.e. after considerable delay. As against this, in the instant case the compassionate ground appointment request for the applicant was made almost immediately after the death of Sh. Vinod.

The applicant also relied upon the DOP&T OM dated 16.01.2013 wherein consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment have been issued. Through this policy directive, the earlier limit of three years for consideration of compassionate ground appointment, was done away with and this OM does not specifically lay any restriction for considering the case of another family member if the member, for whom compassionate ground appointment was requested earlier, had died before the compassionate ground appointment request could mature.

Matter has been heard at length. Sh. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant and Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents.

The scheme of compassionate ground appointment is not a vested right. It is only a benevolent consideration to be extended to the bereaved family so as to avoid the conditions of penury. This consideration was extended in respect of Sh. Vinod, for whom the compassionate ground appointment was requested first by the widow of the deceased employee. This could not mature as his name figured much lower in merit vis-a-vis other candidates.

It is very unfortunate that the bereaved family suffered a second tragedy in that Sh. Vinod unfortunately died and thereafter the widow of the deceased employee made a request for consideration of compassionate ground appointment in respect of her elder son, Sh. Tilak Raj, the applicant herein. Since there was no response to this representation, a legal notice was also sent to the respondents and the request for consideration of compassionate ground appointment for applicant has since been rejected (para 2 supra).

In the given circumstances of the case, the rejection of the candidature of Sh. Tilak Raj, only on the ground that the case of Sh. Vinod was rejected while he was still alive, and therefore, Sh. Tilak Raj"s case cannot even be considered, is not in tune with spirit of compassionate appointment scheme. It needs to be mentioned here that scheme of compassionate ground appointments is applicable to bereaved families. Further, the policy directives of the DOP&T do not prohibit any such consideration for another member in such exigencies.

In the event, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate ground appointment and evaluate his case on merit as per extant rules in force, within a period of next six months. On completion of this exercise, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed under advice to the applicant. No order as to costs.