MARY JOSEPH Vs. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of one S.D. Narasimhan who voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent on 31.10.2012 and breathed his last on 22.2.2013. This writ petition has been filed only with the following prayer: -

(2.) Indisputably, the death of the petitioner's husband was after his voluntarily retirement from the service of the respondents. In Ext. P5 representation the petitioner virtually admitted the aforesaid relevant aspect. In such circumstances the question is whether the petitioner could seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus of the aforesaid nature In that context. it is relevant to refer to the statement filed by the respondent. In the said statement it is specifically stated that the husband of the petitioner retired voluntarily from the department on 31.10.2012 and all the retiral benefits payable to him were already paid. Ext. P5 application was received by the respondents on 29.10.2013, It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the said statement that according to the extant orders, compassionate appointment scheme is applicable only to dependent family member of Government servants who die-in-harness and it is not at all applicable to persons like the petitioner and as such the petitioner is not eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced an earlier representation submitted by her on 30.04.2013 viz., Ext. P7 along with the reply affidavit, essentially, to refute the contention of the respondents in the statement that prior to Ext. P5 they had not received any request from the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Whatever that be, the question posed for consideration is whether the petitioner can legally claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband that occurred after his voluntarily retirement from service. Compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment and therefore, any claim for such appointment can only be entertained subject to the provision of the scheme for such appointment. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umeshkumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138 an appointment on compassionate ground has to be made strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines that have been framed by the Government or the concerned public authority. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, 1994 4 SCC 448 no person could claim appointment on compassionate grounds or directed to be given compassionate appointment in total disregard to such rule or such guideline framed for providing compassionate appointment. The petitioner did not have a case that the compassionate appointment scheme covers the claims of dependents of a retiree from the service of the respondents upon the death of the retiree concerned. In fact, there is no case for the petitioner that any such scheme is in force. Admittedly, the petitioner is getting the family pension at the admissible rate consequent to the death of her husband. In the absence of any provision for compassionate appointment, going by the extant rules, a dependent family member of person who died after retirement, voluntarily/compulsorily or on attaining the age of superannuation from service is not entitled to claim and consequently to get compassionate appointment owing to the death of such a retiree. Compassionate appointment itself is an exception to the general rule for recruitment/appointment and therefore, extending the benefits beyond the scope of the scheme would be against the public interest and in the said circumstances, providing appointment to a dependent of a retiree would violate the constitutional scheme. For seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the said authority is bound to perform that and also that the aggrieved got a corresponding legal right for its implementation. Certainly, no mandamus will lie to compel performance of an act contrary to law. In the circumstances, merely because the petitioner seeks only to command the respondents to consider Ext. P5 representation it cannot be granted unmindful of the prayer it carries. For the reasons expatiated above I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to apply to this Court for a mandamus. The long and short of this discussion is that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, it is dismissed.