Yogesh Kumar Soni vs State of Raj.

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—Adoption deed, produced by the petitioner, was not executed in accordance with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1956'', for short), and therefore, the State-respondents declined the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is the subject matter of assailment in the instant writ application with a prayer for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 27th June, 2002 and 1st November, 2001 and to further direct the State-respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class-IV.

Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that Shri Chhagan Lal Soni (deceased Government Servant), died as bachelor, on 1st June, 1998, while working on the post of Class-IV in the office of Assistant Engineer, Glva Dam Safety, Irrigation Sub Division, Uniara, District Tonk. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was adopted complying with all the social ceremonies on 22nd January, 1989. However, the adoption deed was executed and attested by the Notary Public on 26th May, 1998, and therefore, he was entitled for appointment under the Rajasthan Deceased Government Servants Dependants Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1996'', for short). The application claiming appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted on 29th June, 1998. Simultaneously, the terminal benefits of the deceased government servant i.e. GPF, gratuity including salary for the month of May, 1998, leave encashment, pension etc. were also claimed.

In the proceedings instituted before the District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, through Civil Misc. Case No. 85/1998, the petitioner was declared adopted son of the deceased government servant, as would be reflected from the succession certificate issued. Though, the terminal benefits were released to the petitioner. However, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined for non-execution of the adoption deed as per mandate of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1956'', for short) vide impugned communication dated 27th June, 2002 read with communication dated 1st November, 2001.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, would submit that the factum of issuance of succession certificate and release of all the claims on account of GPF, gratuity including salary for the month of May, 1998, leave encashment, pension, Regional Provident Fund and other ancillary benefits, conclusively proved the factum of adoption. The petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased Government Servant. Hence, the action of State-respondents in denying the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, under the Rules of 1996, is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unwarranted and uncalled for, being contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as violative of the mandate of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel would further submit that a bare perusal of the text of the Rules of 1996, in letter and spirit, would reveal that the petitioner is entitled for appointment, as a dependent of the deceased government servant for the petitioner being an adopted son. Therefore, the denial of the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, under the Rules of 1996, deserves to be interfered with.

Moreover, the adoption dates back to the year 1989. The competent Court also issued a succession certificate on the basis of which terminal benefits, to the tune of Rs. 1,05,937/- (Rs. One lac five thousand nine hundred thirty seven), have been released in favour of the petitioner, treating him as an adopted son of the deceased government servant. Since the petitioner has no source of livelihood still his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined by the respondents. The action in declining the claim of the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of Rules of 1996 as well as violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State-respondents, reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit and stand set up therein, repelled the claim and strenuously agreed that the adoption deed was not executed in accordance with the mandate of Section 11(6) of the Act of 1956. Moreover, the petitioner was allegedly adopted in accordance with the Customs and all the social ceremonies were allegedly performed on 21st January, 1989 but the adoption deed was registered only on 26th May, 1998, which makes adoption a doubtful story. The learned counsel would further submit that the Transfer Certificate issued, to the petitioner, by the Government Middle School, Police Lines, Ajmer, on 12th July, 1995, reflected the name of the father of the petitioner as Shri Uchav Lal. Thus, if the petitioner was adopted by the deceased government servant on 21st January, 1989. The fact must have been reflected in the Transfer Certificate issued, to the petitioner, by the School in the year 1995. Hence, the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the adoption deed, is a doubtful document. Furthermore, the claim has been staked only for the purpose of claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, which otherwise is an exception to the mandate of statutory rules and the scheme of the Constitution providing for appointment to public service.

Further, the very object underlying the Rules of 1996, is to provide financial assistance to the family on account of sudden demise of the bread winner of the family; as has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.

According to the counsel for the State-respondents, the action in declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be faulted rather it is perfectly, valid and in consonance with the object sought to be achieved.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.

Indisputably, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been staked by the petitioner in the capacity of an adopted son of the deceased government servant. The fact that the terminal benefits of the deceased government servant have been released in favour of the petitioner in view of the succession certificate granted to him by the competent court is also not in dispute.

The object underlying the appointment on compassionate grounds is primarily to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased government servant while dying in harness. In a catena of judgments, the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land has held, in unequivocal terms, that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The claim has to be considered in accordance with the Rules, regulations or administrative instructions, governing the subject and not being oblivious of the financial condition of the family of the deceased government servant.

The category of an employment on compassionate grounds, in itself is an exception to the constitutional provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The primary object of extending compassionate appointment is, to enable the family of the deceased government servant, to over come the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing on account of sudden demise of the bread winner of the family, and does not confer any status.

In the instant case at hand, the deceased government servant was a bachelor and died issue-less. Thus, there were no liabilities. The petitioner though received the terminal benefits owing to the succession certificate granted in his favour, but that ipso facto would not confer him with a right to claim compassionate appointment, more particularly, while the deceased government servant died in the year 1998, and the petitioner did not furnish the details of the liabilities and the financial status, including immovable and movable assets. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment now, after a lapse of 14 years, and that too without due consideration to the financial resources available to the petitioner as well as the financial deprivation to the petitioner as a result death of late Shri Chhagan Lal Soni; would be in conflicted with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the purpose and object underlying the compassionate appointment.

In the case of Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; the Hon''ble Supreme Court referring to the earlier opinion in the case of K. Sasidharan Vs. Kerala State Film Development Corpn., and National Institute of Technology and Others Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, ; observed that appointment on compassionate grounds can only be granted to tide over sudden financial crisis of the family of the deceased. Further, it is now well settled of law that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason and object underlying such a claim for appointment is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased government servant to tide over the sudden financial crisis on account of death of the bread winner of the family.

After a survey of several earlier opinions on the subject of compassionate appointment, in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed thus:

"12. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi it was held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar it was indicated that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependent of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned."

For the reasons and discussions hereinabove as well as keeping in view the reasons and object underlying the appointment on compassionate grounds, it can safely be construed that the petitioner is not in a state of financial crisis. Moreover, a period of almost 14 years has elapsed and the deceased government servant left no liability. The petitioner must have been of about 37 years of age by now as according to his affidavit his age in the year 2004, was 27 years. He cannot be allowed appointment at this stage on compassionate grounds.

I am of the opinion that no case is made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the singular fact situation obtaining in the instant case at hand.

In the result, the writ application is hereby dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.