BALVINDER SINGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for writ has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of denial of compassionate appointment by the respondents on the ground of delay in applying.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred in the writ petition that his father was working with the respondents on the post of driver and expired while on duty on 25.05.1997 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother Smt.Sunder Kaur, and other children Sandeep Kaur and Vikram Singh; that his mother Smt. Sunder Kaur applied to the respondents for according compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee within reasonable time; that the respondent No. 2 by his communication dated 01.03.2001 (Annex.1) addressed to Smt.Sunder Kaur sought certain more documents that were duly supplied by her; that the respondent No. 2 again informed her by the letter dated 12.08.2002 (Annex.2) that services of women were not found useful in plying of the vehicles and hence the Administration has decided to seek information (in the enclosed proforma) from the woman dependent if she desired employment for her son/daughter; that other communications were received by the petitioner's mother on 18.08.2004 and 06.09.2004 (Annexure 3 & 4) whereby the respondents offered one time financial assistance; and that after receipt of those letters, the petitioner qualifiedSecondary Examination and being eligible for the post of driver, applied in the requisite form alongwith necessary documents.

(3.) NOTICE for final disposal was issued in this matter on 12.02.2007 and the respondents have come out with the reply that father of the petitioner while working with the answering respondents expired on 25.05.1997 and after his death, the application seeking compassionate appointment was made only on 10.11.2000, after a delay of more than 3 years whereas such application was required to be submitted within a period of six months from the date of death of the employee and, therefore, due to delayed submission of the application, the case was not considered and the petitioner was informed accordingly by the letter dated 30.10.2004 (Annex.R/1). The respondents in their para -wise reply, in relation to paragraph -3 of the writ petition have stated that the petitioner has averred about his mother applying for compassionate appointment but without stating the date of submission of such application; and that only the petitioner or his mother are responsible for not submitting the application well within prescribed time inasmuch as the application was submitted only on 10.11.2000, after a delay of more than three years. However, in relation to paragraphs 4 to 7 of the writ petition the respondents have stated that the same need no reply ''being factual''. The respondents have reiterated in the subsequent paragraphs that no application was received from the petitioner's side seeking appointment on compassionate ground within prescribed time and the application was submitted at a belated stage that was not considered and the petitioner was informed accordingly by the letter dated 30.10.2004 (Annex.R/1). According to the respondents, the petitioner again submitted an application on 10.05.2006 for consideration of his case and in reply thereto, the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 18.07.2006 (Annex.6) that his case was not considered as already informed. The respondents have contested the grounds stated in the writ petition essentially with the same submissions that application for compassionate appointment was not made within prescribed time of six months and thus was rejected by the competent authority and the petitioner was informed accordingly. It has also been asserted that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right; that the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to assist the deceased's family in the emergent situation to overcome the financial crisis caused by the death of the employee and in this case since the family was surviving without deceased for more than seven years, it cannot be said that the family is living in indigent circumstances; and if it were so, family would have approached the authorities well within time. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the stand taken in the reply with reference to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J. & K. and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, RLW 2007 (1) 73.