Union of India vs Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Respondents in O.A. No. 24/HP/2012 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh have come up in this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 3rd February, 2012. Matter pertains to appointment on compassionate ground. It was 2nd round of litigation as far as the original application is concerned. On an earlier occasion, the original applicant filed application No. 350/HP/2011 leading to Annexure P-1, order. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of that order would be material:

The fact that her daughters are already married was stated by Smt. Vimla Devi in the course of application, dated 31.12.2008 itself. She did not ask for the appointment of her two other sons on compassionate basis and Zeroed in upon the name of the applicant by making a precise basis and zeroed in upon the name of applicant by making a precise averment that he will look after her in every respect. How joining of the entire family income would, then, form the very basis for determination of entitlement for compassionate appointment is beyond comprehension.

Though there can be no escape from the conclusion that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right, it is also cannot be wished away that the administrative instructions issued by various segments of Government dispensation do provide for a percentage of posts being provided for compassionate appointment. In that view of things, it is the income of the widow of the deceased which is required to be taken into consideration for determining whether she has means, adequate enough to sustain herself. Besides the averment made in the course of Annexure A-6, the applicant made a precise averment in the course of Para 4(iii) of the O.A. that the total family income from all sources is 32,400/- It is in the course of that very para that the applicant averred that he is putting up with his mother and is also supporting her and further that his sisters and two brothers are already married and are living separately. These averments, made in the course of Para 4 (iii) of the O.A. were not specifically denied in the course of the counter. All that the respondents averred, in the corresponding para of the counter, was that the family of the applicant is joint qua two brothers inasmuch as applicant herein Rajnder Kumar Sharma, his brother Gopi Chand and his mother Bimla Devi are living together. This averment does not, at all, make a mention of the third brother of the applicant. That averment does not even controvert the fact that at it is the applicant who is supporting his mother.

There is no convincing proof that Smt. Bimla Devi has any independent income to maintain herself.

The petitioners herein considered the application pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, referred to above, and rejected the same and that gave rise to O.A. No. 24/HP/2012.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General vehemently contended that the family is not living in penury and that compassionate appointment is intended only to help the family to get out of the vacuum created by the bread winner. It is submitted that since the daughters are married and the brothers are otherwise in employment, there is no penury. We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated in view of the finality attained to Annexure P-1, order dated 23rd September, 2011, which we have extracted above.

Next contention advanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General is that since the family has been adequately compensated by the retiral benefits, it cannot be said that there is any disadvantageous and penurious position for the family. The terminal benefits due to the deceased are not to be taken into account for deciding the financial position of the family, is a settled position in view of the decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC and others, 2005(2) SLJ, 102. All that is directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is only to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the findings in Annexure P-1, order dated 23rd September, 2011 and also ignoring the other objections regarding retiral benefits while assessing the financial position of the family. In view of the finality attained to order dated 23rd September, 2011 on certain factual aspects, including the employment of the brothers and marital status of the sisters and in view of the settled position regarding exclusion of the terminal benefits due to the deceased for assessing the financial position, we do not find any infirmity either legal or otherwise, warranting any interference. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.