SHANTI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), thereby directing it to reconsider the application of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds.

(2.) In a nutshell, facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was employed in the Horticulture Department of the MCD as a Chowkidar and he expired on 1st June, 2003 during the tenure of his service. On 11th August, 2003, the petitioner moved an application to be appointed as a Chowkidar on compassionate grounds, but the same was rejected by the MCD on 3rd March, 2006 and the petitioner was informed of the said rejection vide letter dated 29th May, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for the same post on 21st June, 2006, but her application was rejected and vide letter dated 31st August, 2006, issued by the MCD, she was informed that since her application had already been rejected by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 3rd March, 2006, therefore, her second application seeking compassionate appointment could not be reconsidered due to the lapse of three years from the date of death of her husband.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the MCD had deliberately ignored the penurious and pitiable condition of the petitioner while considering her application for compassionate appointment. It was stated that the MCD had erred in not considering her case fit for compassionate appointment merely on the grounds that she had received the dues against Leave Encashment and GPF Contribution, GIS and Gratuity and was receiving a family pension of Rs. 1,600 + DA, which amounted to a total of RS. 2,500 and that the family of the petitioner was residing in its own one room set. It was submitted that the income so received was not enough to sustain a family of five, including two daughters of marriageable age and one minor son and that the family was facing extreme poverty. It was also contended that the action of the MCD in rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 3rd March, 2006 was vitiated since the same was done without giving any reasons.