LAXMI NARAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition seeking for appointment of the petitioner as against a suitable Job/post on compassionate ground in lieu of acquisition of the land of the father of the petitioner by the respondent/DDA. The land of the father and uncle of the petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act sometime in the year 1961. The compensation amount was also paid in between the period from 1961-68. The petitioner, according to record was born on 10/1/1971. A resolution being resolution No.112 was passed by the respondent/ Authority on 22/8/1973 resolving that dependant member in each family whose land had been acquired could be provided employment by the Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner registered his name in the employment exchange for a job on 6/9/1995 and during the period from 25/6/1998 to 11/12/1998 the petitioner did a course of electric wiring. A request was sent to the respondent/ Authority by the petitioner ON 3/5/1999 seeking employment on the basis of the aforesaid resolution issued by the respondent on 22/8/1973. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was turned down and hence the present petition is filed in this court. As the respondents did not file the counter affidavit within the time specified by this court, it was ordered by this court that the writ petition would be decided on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits on record. In the light of the records and in terms of the aforesaid order I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the contents of the aforesaid resolution No.112 dated 22/8/1973. Basing reliance on that the counsel submitted that on the basis of the contents of the said resolution the petitioner being a dependant member of the family whose land was acquired should have been provided with an employment by the DDA. Counsel appearing for the respondent however, drew my attention to the contents of Annexure 'E' annexed to the writ petition. He stated that the petitioner has annexed the said annexure for the purpose of relying on the contents thereof and that the said annexure would clearly establish that the aforesaid resolution No.112 dated 22/8/1973 was superseded/ withdrawn by the subsequent policy adopted by the DDA which is dated 19/8/1978. He drew my specific attention to the said resolution of the Delhi Development Authority resolving that children of the villagers whose land had been acquired could be given weightage of 5% marks in the recruitment test for the post of LDC in Delhi Development Authority. In the said document it is also stated that the aforesaid resolution dated 22/8/1973 was adopted because at that stage it was possible to provide such employment because Delhi Development Authority was in the stage of expansion in the matter of staff. But subsequently somewhere around 1978 Delhi Development Authority did not need the additional staff and therefore, the aforesaid change in the policy was brought about. There is no denial of the fact that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the process was complete sometime in 1966. The aforesaid resolution No.112 on which the petitioner seeks to rely upon was adopted by Delhi Development Authority on 22/8/1973. The policy of providing for employment to the dependant children in each family whose land had been acquired was taken as opportunity of employment was available at that stage, which position stood altered subsequently around 1978. Therefore, around 1978 a decision by the Authority was taken that the children of the villagers whose land had been acquired could be given weightage of 5% marks in the competitive tests for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner was born on 10/1/1971 and therefore, when he became eligible for getting an appointment the aforesaid resolution No.112 lost its force, for resolution No.147 was passed by the respondent authority on 19/1/1978 when the petitioner was only 6 years of age. The petitioner got himself registered with the Employment Exchange on 6/9/1995 and therefore, with the change in the policy the petitioner lost the right for consideration for getting employment on compassionate grounds, if any, with the adoption of the aforesaid resolution in 1978.

(3.) The object of giving compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. In this connection reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others; (1994) 4 SCC 138. In the said decision it was also held that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period and that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. In this connection reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar and another; (1994) 2 SCC 718 wherein the Supreme Court has held that hardship of a candidate would not entitle him to compassionate appointment de hors statutory provisions. Similar is the observation of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandra Narain Verma; (1994) 2 SCC 752.