JASHBIR SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR INMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the writ petition, which is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2343/2002, which was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) While the father of the petitioner was working as Technician-B-Grade, he died in harness on 16th March, 2000 leaving behind his widow, one son and four daughters. However, three daughters of the deceased were given in marriage during the life time of the deceased himself. After the death of the deceased, an application was filed by the widow of the deceased praying for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The said application was processed and after due consideration thereof, the said request was rejected by order dated 8th March, 2001 on the ground that the widow of the deceased owns a house and is not dependent on her children and is possessed of sufficient means by way of retiral benefits. The said request was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner for whom the said compassionate appointment was sought for was already married and therefore, ineligible for service. Even thereafter the petitioner submitted repeated representations which were also rejected. The aforesaid orders rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment were under challenge in the Original Application, which was filed before the learned Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the grounds of rejection are not valid as the family is still in financial crisis as one of the sisters of the petitioner is yet to be married. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent contending, inter alia, that as per DoPT's Scheme of 9th October, 1998, the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis which is caused on the death of the sole bread-earner, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood. The said prayer before the Tribunal was also contested on the ground that the widow of the deceased got an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as retiral benefits and is in receipt of family pension of Rs.2,300/- plus DA and that the family of the deceased is having own residential house and also half killa of agricultural land. The stand taken was that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Scheme and as the petitioner was not found indigent and there were more deserving cases, no case for compassionate appointment is made out. Before us it was also contended that there is no vacancy under 5% of direct recruitment quota for compassionate appointment and, therefore, even otherwise the petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment. Reliance was also placed on an office memorandum issued by the government on 19th July, 2001 laying down the limit for waiting list only for a period of one year, which could be extended to a period of three years in an appropriate case.

(3.) We have considered the contentions raised before us. Request for compassionate appointment of persons like the petitioner is governed by the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. The said Scheme provides that compassionate appointment could be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. It is also laid down in the said Scheme that while the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of government servant on casual/daily/ad hoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar in considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments. It is further laid down in the said Scheme that only dependants of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood could be appointed on compassionate grounds. It is also provided therein that the whole object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. In the said Scheme reference is also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar reported in JT 1996 (5) SC 319 and to the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai reported in JT 1996 (9) SC 197 and a stipulation was made therein that the ratio decided by the said decisions should be kept in view while considering the case of compassionate appointment.