MAINA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Naina Devi wd/o Constable deceased Kirt Ram has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash memorandum dated 22.12.1995 of Area Organizer(s)(Annexure P-2) rejecting her claim for appointment on compassionate ground against Group-D post in SSB Directorate.

(2.) The Petitioner is resident of village Bamala, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi. Her husband Kirt Ram Constable No. 68103 was found dead on 2.12.1993 while he was serving at SSB Training Center at Sarhan, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. The Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate ground after the death of her husband. Her claim was referred to the Cabinet Secretariat by the Area Organizer (Respondent No. 3 herein) for clarification as there was restrictions of 50% of reservation of vacancies due to recent orders of Government reserving additional 27% for OBCs in addition to 22.5% for SC/ST candidates and she was informed by memorandum dated 22.9.1994 (Annexure P-1) that it would not be possible to consider cases for compassionate appointment at that stage and further action would be taken on receipt of the decision from Cabinet Secretariat which was awaited. According to the Petitioner, she made a number of representations to various officials of the Respondents during the period from 1994 to 1995 and one of such representation was forwarded by the Directorate General of Police, H.P. to the Divisional Organizer, SSB, H.P. Division. The case of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment remained under consideration of the Respondents right from the year 1993 till 22nd December, 1995 when she was informed by memorandum dated 22.12.1995 issued by Respondent No. 3 mark Annexure P-2 whereby and whereunder she was informed that as per the decision of the SSB Directorate no vacancy existed in the 'Group-D' post against compassionate appointment quota and therefore the Petitioner could not be appointed against the said post.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that while considering her case for employment on compassionate ground the vacancy position in the Department for 'Group-D' post had to be considered for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 and it was unbelievable that during three years period and even in the subsequent year 1996 no vacancy was available in 'Group-D' against which the Petitioner could have been appointed. The Petitioner contended that the basic purpose for appointment on compassionate ground is to help the family of the deceased to tide over the crises caused due to sole bread earner of the family and in the present case the appointment of the Petitioner was dragged for years together thereby the very object of giving the compassionate appointment to her was defeated. The Petitioner submitted that her husband was the only bread earner of the family consisting of three children and herself and after his death the entire family has been left high and dry. She also stated that fixing of 5% quota for appointment on compassionate ground by the Respondents is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.