FERNANDEZ, E. M. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the son and the wife respectively of one Shri R. E. G. Vinda who was an employee in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts. The said R. E. G. Vinda died on 6th March 1992, leaving behind the petitioners. On the death of Shri R. E. G. Vinda the second petitioner Mrs. Treessa Vinda sent Ext. P1 letter dated 18th March 1992 to the second respondent stating that her son (first petitioner) Master Emmanuel Martin Fernandez aged 11 years who was studying in Class V may be given an opportunity to serve the department when he attains the age for Central Government employment. She also stated that due to some compelling situations she did not intend to be employed in the department. In reply to Ext. P1, Ext. P2 letter dated 25th March 1992 was received by the second petitioner. In Ext. P2 it was stated that as the said Emmanuel Martin Fernandez had not attained the age for Government service and was also not educationally qualified, he was not eligible for Government service at that time. She also received Ext. P3 communication dated 16th April 1992 advising that as and when her son attains the age of 18 years, she may renew her request by submitting an application quoting the said letter as reference. It appears that a further application dated 30th October 1999 was submitted by the second petitioner. With reference to the said application dated 30th October 1999 the third respondent through Ext. P4 letter dated 20th December 1999 requested the second petitioner to forward the application in the enclosed format to enable the respondents to examine the request for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. She was also requested to furnish necessary documents proving age and qualification. According to the petitioners the application was submitted in the prescribed format and necessary documents also were famished. But through Ext. P5 communication dated 2nd February 2001 the second petitioner was informed that appointment of her son on compassionate grounds could not be considered at that stage for want of vacancies. Thereupon the second petitioner submitted Ext. P6 representation dated 15th November 2001 to the second respondent requesting for appointment of her son. It is seen that a further application dated 11th March 2002 also was submitted by the second petitioner. In reply to the applications dated 15th November 2001 and 11th March 2002 the second respondent sent Ext. P7 letter stating that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds to Shri E. M. Fernandez was reexamined by the Ministry of Defence (Finance) with reference to the latest orders and that the request cannot be considered for want of vacancies in the department against compassionate appointments. Second respondent also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana ( 1994 (4) SCC 138 ) and Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar ( 1996 (4) SCC 560 ) and H. A. L. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai ( AIR 1997 SC 123 ). It was further stated in Ext. P7 that the case was treated as closed and no further correspondence in the matter would be entertained. Thereupon petitioners filed O. A. 441/2003 praying to quash the communication dated 4th April 2002 (Ext. P7) and for a direction to the respondents to give employment assistance to the first petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said O. A. was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench under S.19(3)of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 as per Ext. P8 order.

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right and justified in rejecting O. A. No. 441 of 2003. As held by the Supreme Court appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time. Appointment on compassionate grounds can be offered only to a dependent of an employee dying in harness leaving behind a family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Compassionate appointment cannot be offered, as a matter of course, irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased Government servant. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. The object of giving compassionate appointment is to help the family to tide over the immediate and dire necessity on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family. In the present case, immediately after the death of the Government servant, his wife informed the department that for her own reasons she did not intend to be employed in the department. That itself would show that the family was not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The first petitioner became eligible for employment under the Central Government seven years after the death of his father. Consequently there was a lapse of long period between the death and the date of seeking appointment. At any rate, the respondents have stated that there is no vacancy available in the department for making appointment on compassionate grounds. As pointed out in Ext. P-7 letter the Supreme Court has held that appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose. In the totality of the above circumstances, we are of the view that the stand taken by the respondents in Ext. P-7 letter is right and justified. Hence we do not find any valid reason to interfere with Ext. P-8 order of the Tribunal.

(3.) Hence there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed.