MITHUN DEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Baruah, learned CGC. The petitioner is the son of Late Mohit Ranjan Deb who died in harness on 05.03.2004 while was in service as UDA under the respondents. Claiming compassionate appointment, the petitioner made a representation and the same was attended by the respondents by making further correspondences which are dated 29.03.2004, 16.04.2004, 12.05.2004, 11.09.2004, 07.10.2004 and 06.04.2005. By the said communications the petitioner and his mother were directed to submit applications in the prescribed form and was also asked to submit certain certificates regarding landed property.

(2.) The case of the petitioner came to be rejected and the same was communicated by Annexures-9, 10 and 11 communications dated 04.05.2005, 27.06.2005 and 15.07.2005. By Annexure-9 communication dated 04.05.2005, the petitioner was intimated that the Board of Officers in consideration of the financial status, pecuniary condition and essential need of the family of the deceased employee, could not recommend the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However, the petitioner was advised to apply under "son case category" for any suitable post as and when the vacancies would arise. By the said communication, the petitioner was also intimated about restriction of 5% vacancies for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was also informed that on the evaluation of the relative merit points of various applications worked out by the Board of Officers, the case of the petitioner could not be recommended. The petitioner was once again advised to apply in "son case category". Similar decision was also conveyed by the 3rd communication dated 15.05.2005.

(3.) Placing reliance on Annexure-12 Office memorandum dated 09.10.1998 laying down the scheme for compassionate appointment, Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents in its true perspective and that his case was rejected on untenable grounds. Placing reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in : (Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 493) and (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., 2005 10 SCC 289), Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority could not have rejected the case of the petitioner taking into account the family pension. He submits that whatever benefits the family has derived on account of death of the sole breadwinner, the said benefit cannot take away consideration for compassionate appointment.