Tulsi vs State of Punjab and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 14.8.2010 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, for the reason that her application for appointment was beyond the period of one year prescribed for making such application as also on the ground that the earlier application dated 19.11.2003 submitted by the Petitioner stood rejected on 22.8.2006, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition, where again the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined on the ground of non-receipt of verification report of her middle class certificate which was submitted by the Petitioner.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the husband of the Petitioner, who was working as an Orderly under the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, had expired on 5.11.2003. The Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds vide application dated 19.11.2003 enclosing therewith a copy of the 8th class pass certificate. On 14.1.2004, she was directed to submit an affidavit that she was dependent on her husband and then on 20.2.2004, she was called upon to produce the original certificate of 8th class pass and also submit an application in the specified Performa. The needful was done by the Petitioner and then on consideration of the claim of the Petitioner, an Endeavour was made by the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, to verify the authenticity of the certificate of the Petitioner issued by Shri Nepal Rastria Secondary School, Rangai, Dubia and Kapilvastu.

As the said certificate did not bear any serial number or registration number, doubt was created with regard to the authenticity of the same. A letter dated 1.3.2004 was sent to the Headmaster of the School with a request to send the copies of admission form and record showing the admission of the Petitioner. Thereafter, reminders dated 7.5.2004, 22.7.2004, 2.9.2004 and 7.10.2004 were sent to the Headmaster. The Headmaster sent a letter intimating that without the caste and address of the student, the admission record cannot be traced and requested to send a photocopy of the caste certificate and complete address. The Petitioner was called upon to inform about her caste and address vide letter dated 23.11.2004. She then appeared on 26.2.2005 and informed about her caste as Tandon (Khatri) and also gave her residential address as Gursinghe Kapilvastu, Mohalla Ward No. 8, Bazar Gursinghe, Nepal, Village Ranga, Zone Lumbini, District Kapilvastu. Letter dated 3.3.2005 was sent to the Headmaster of the School giving the details, as informed by the Petitioner, but no reply was received from him despite subsequent reminder dated 5.8.2005, however, the same was taken by the Petitioner dasti.

A photocopy of the document submitted by the Petitioner was sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Kapilvastu, Nepal, vide office letter dated 6.10.2005 to verify the genuineness and obtain report as to whether the Petitioner had acquired the qualification from the said school or not. Reminders dated 19.11.2005, 21.1.2006, 16.3.2006, 22.5.2006, 28.6.2006 and 27.7.2006 were sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Kapilvastu, but no response was received. The Petitioner also did not submit any report from the school regarding the genuineness of her educational qualification nor any report was received from the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Kapilvastu.

In the light of absence of the proof of the educational qualification of the Petitioner, which was 8th class pass and is the minimum required for appointment to Class IV post, the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda proceeded to reject the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-20). Copy of this letter was forwarded to the Petitioner vide endorsement of the even date i.e. 22.8.2006.

The Petitioner kept quiet and did not take any further steps thereafter. In the meantime, she passed Class 10 in March 2009 under the Punjab Open School Scheme of Studies from the Punjab School Education Board and was issued a Matriculation Certificate dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure P-12). She then submitted another application for appointment on compassionate grounds attaching thereto the Matriculation Certificate. The District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda called upon the Petitioner to produce a dependency certificate which was duly produced by her issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda dated 24.5.2010.

After considering the application dated 23.7.2009 of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the same was rejected vide order dated 14.8.2010 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the same was submitted after the expiry of one year, which is the maximum period provided under the Rules from the date of death of the employee. A mention was also made to the earlier order dated 22.8.2006 vide which her earlier application dated 19.11.2003 claiming the same benefit stood rejected. It is these two rejection orders which has lead to the filing of the present writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment as she is fully qualified for the appointment to Class IV post. His contention that the earlier rejection order dated 22.8.2006 cannot be sustained as the said order was passed merely because the 8th class pass certificate submitted by the Petitioner could not be verified to be a genuine document, for which the Petitioner cannot be held responsible. He further contends that after the Petitioner had passed her Matriculation examination in March, 2009 and had submitted a fresh application dated 23.7.2009, her claim should have been considered afresh as she now fulfilled the educational qualifications and should not have been rejected on mere technical ground of the expiry of one year period after the death of her husband Late Narinder Bahadur, who was an Orderly under the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. He contends that the changed circumstances should have been taken note of by the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, while considering the claim of the Petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned cannot be sustained.

I have heard counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

Earlier application submitted by the Petitioner dated 19.11.2003 was duly considered by the Competent Authority and the claim for compassionate appointment could not be granted to the Petitioner as the certificate of 8th class pass submitted by her could not be verified to be an authenticate one. The Petitioner was also given an opportunity to get information from the school as well as from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapilvastu but she also failed to get any information in support of her educational qualifications. Various communications were sent to the Headmaster of the School and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapilvastu, which have been referred to above, did not bear any fruit as no response was received from either of these authorities. Left with no option, learned District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide his order dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-20) rejected the claim of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner did not take any steps nor did she agitate over the said claim and woke up only by submitting another application dated 23.7.2009 but the said application was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 14.8.2010 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as it had been submitted after an expiry of one year which is the maximum period provided under the Rules for making an application for appointment on compassionate grounds from the date of expiry of the employee by the legal heirs.

Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate grounds could be condoned. Further no explanation has been given by the Petitioner for the delayed submission of the application. The only explanation which has been put forth by the counsel for the Petitioner is that she had passed the 10th class examination in March 2009 and thereafter submitted her claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.7.2009 which would not be a justifiable reason for condoning the delay.

The purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds primarily is on pure humanitarian basis taking into consideration the fact that when an employee dies during harness leaving his family in a penury state and without any means of livelihood, gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased, which may be eligible for such an employment , may be granted so that the family would tide over an unexpected and difficult situation which has arisen because of the untimely and sudden death of the earning member of the family. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to make both ends meet and to sustain themselves. But it does not mean that when an employee dies in harness, it would give a right to the legal heirs of the deceased to claim employment as and when they fulfill the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post as per the policy decision/Rules. It is an exception carved to the normal rule primarily due to the extreme hardship which a family is likely to face because of the loss of the bread winner of the family. If the family can survive for a period of almost six years, it is indicative of the fact that the family is not without resources and the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot succeed. Reference, at this stage, can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1994 (3) RSJ 317 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited and Anr. 2005 (3) RSJ 313.

In view of the above, the claim as made by the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be accepted. If that be so, the impugned orders dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-20) and 14.8.2010 (Annexure P-19) rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be faulted with.

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.