RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, son of Havildar who died in harness while in the active service, applied for compassionate appointment. He was asked to appear before the committee for his compassionate appointment and unfortunately nothing has been done so, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit alongwith Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, New Delhi, alongwith a copy of the scheme for Compassionate Appointment, The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependant family member of a government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relive the family of the government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency, Undisputedly, the son is included in the definition of dependant family member. Under the heading "Determination/ Availability of Vacancies" it is observed in Clause (e) that employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/ medically retired government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Clause (f) says that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the Administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to provide at any early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.