SANTOSH KUMARTIWARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHER of the petitioner S.N. Tiwary was in Army service. He was working on the post of Mazdoor. He died on 1.9.1986. The wife of the employee applied for appointment on compassionate ground. She died on 26.10.1991. The petitioner is son of the deceased employee. The mother of the petitioner was offered employment in 1994. it has been stated in the petition that information about her death was given to the authority concerned but no document has been annexed in support of the statement. It has also been stated that the petitioner made request for his appointment but no where in the petition it has been stated when he filed petition for appointment on compassionate ground. However, it appears from the material on record that grievance of the petitioner was considered. The petitioner was asked to furnish the document etc. According to the petitioner he was called for interview also but finally his case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected vide letter dated 5th August, 2000, Annexure -11. In the said letter it has been stated that in view of para 14 (b) of Government of India letter no. (DOPT) 14014/6/94 -Estt. (D) dated 9th October, 1998 his case for appointment was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner on query could not be able to say about the date of filing of application nor he could able to produce relevant document. However, learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1976 wherein it has been held that delay in appointment and rejection of the application in view of ban subsequently imposed on appointment of ladies to the post is bad in law and accordingly relief was granted. According to the decision as indicated above any delay in offering appointment to the dependant of the deceased cannot be a ground for denial of appointment to the dependant on compassionate ground. In the said decision it has also been stated that if no post is available, supernumerary post should be created in such a case. The employee died in the year 1986. The petition filed by widow of the employee for appointment on compassionate ground was processed but appointment letter was issued after death of the widow.

(2.) IN the instant case it has been claimed that the petitioner filed petition for appointment on compassionate ground after death of his mother. However, no date of filing application has been mentioned in the petition nor the petition concerned has been annexed with the writ petition. However, claim of the petitioner was considered by the authority concerned but was rejected vide Annexure -11. The mother of the petitioner who had filed for appointment on compassionate ground could not avail offer of appointment as she died earlier. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that in case of death of one dependant of the deceased employee, other dependant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground that too after 15 years. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138, the Apex Court has held that as a rule appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency, the provision of employment in lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The Apex Court has concluded the decision holding that compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of. time and after the crisis is over. In the said decision the case of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (supra) has also been noticed.