MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the change of policy of wait listing on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent, died on 24.4.1996. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.8.1996. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was entertained by the respondent and same was approved on 31.10.1996. At page 32 of the paper-book is the Office Memorandum of the respondent. The same is reproduced below :

(2.) The petitioner waited for the appointment in terms of the appointment given to the petitioner on 31.10.1996. However, the respondent communicated to the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was appearing for appointment on compassionate ground and her serial number in the waiting list was 18 and 8 candidates have been given appointment as per rules and the case of the petitioner shall be considered as per the seniority maintained by the respondent. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent that though the name of the petitioner was shown in the waiting list for compassionate ground at serial no.5 which was formulated on the basis of first-come-first-serve, however, thereafter another policy has been formulated where the seniority is to be assigned from the date of death of the government servant and not on the basis of the date of application and, therefore, the name of the petitioner on the basis of the changed criterion was placed at serial no.55. Mr.Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this changed policy was without hearing and without any notice to the petitioner. It was also contended that as a matter of fact the petitioner's appointment in principle was accepted on 31.10.1996, however, she had to wait on account of some wait list which was in vogue at that time and the petitioner went up to the ladder in the said waiting list and her number was five in January, 2000. Thereafter, change of criteria and pushing the petitioner back to serial no.55 in the waiting list is whimsical, arbitrary and without any basis. It was also contended that policy on compassionate appointment has to take into consideration the problem and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased at the time of his death and there has to be a nexus between the date of death and the need of the family members for compassionate appointment and, therefore, the urgency on the part of the dependant members of the family in moving application cannot be given a go bye by the respondent.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction as the respondents are Central Public Works Department and the appropriate forum would be Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended by counsel for the respondent that it was for the respondent to formulate its policy in the respondent departments, the policy has taken into consideration the date of death as the starting point for preparing a wait list, whereas in some other departments it is the date of the application and still in some other departments it was date of approval of the competent authority and to make a uniform policy date of death was taken as a starting point for making the wait list. It was further contended by counsel for the respondent that this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not strike the policy framed by the respondent. In the alternative it was contended that if this Court comes to a conclusion to strike the policy the same be prospective in nature.