BINOD GOPE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father. Late Krishna Mahto, a postal employee, who died in harness on 7.4.1998 while he was posted at Basia post office under the respondent-Department. According to the petitioner, he had made application in respect of the compassionate appointment within time but had been rejected by letter dated 11.9.2003 (Annexure-6) by simply stating that there were nil vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of father of the petitioner, he made an application immediately thereafter, the respondents asked for certain documents by letter dated 29.6.2000 to which he duly responded to by submitting all the relevant documents. Thereafter he received a communication contained at Annexure-6 dated 11.9.2003 by which his case has been rejected on the ground that there being nil vacancy under 5% direct recruit quota for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the aforesaid ground taken in the order of rejection by referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit at paragraph No. 2 that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on 27.2.2004. Therefore by the statement made in the first counter-affidavit that the petitioners' case was considered in February, 2004, the order of rejection is of September, 2003 itself on the ground that no vacancy existed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tried to draw the attention of the Court on the chart contained at Annexure-R/1 to the second counter affidavit where the instances of such six persons hove been made by the respondents whose case were considered but according to him, certain applicants, whose bread earners died in harness even after the death of the father of the petitioner, have been appointed on corn-passionate ground by the respondents thereby causing discrimination vis--vis the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent's stand taken in the counter affidavit, contradicts the impugned order passed in September, 2003 and they have also discriminated in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed two counter affidavits and the statement made in paragraph 2 of the first counter affidavit, has been sought to be explained by the respondents. The respondents, in their subsequent affidavit, have taken a clear stand by stating that in the meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee held on 27.2.2004, the 76 cases were reviewed and considered including the case of the petitioner. There were 5 vacancies in the year 2002 for compassionate appointment under 5% Direct Recruit Quota. The Circle Relaxation Committee after examining all 76 cases including the petitioner's case, selected five most deserving cases based on liabilities, family size, age of children and the landed property etc. of the deceased employee for appointment on the compassionate ground. He submits that from a perusal of the chart, Annexure-R/1, it would appear that those recommended were widow applicants of the deceased employee in respect of whom other consideration relating to the landed property and the number of dependents' minor children have been taken into account for compassionate appointment. He further submits that Annexure-R/II indicates that several other persons, whose bread earners had died in harness before the death of the father of the petitioner, were also considered and rejected by Circle Relaxation Committee in its meeting held in February, 2004. Therefore, it is submitted that the case of discrimination is not made out. He, however, submits that the compassionate appointment is granted to the dependents of the deceased bread earner in order to meet the immediate hardships causing destitution and penury, which results after the death of the deceased employee. In the present case, the widow of the deceased employee is getting pension and the petitioner as per his admitted date of birth i.e. 5.1.1974, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has almost reached 40 years by now. He having reached the age of 40 by now has survived for maximum period after the death of his father for almost 15 long years by now. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief of appointment on the compassionate ground.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. After the death of father of the petitioner. Late Krishna Mahto, a postal employee, who died in harness on 7.4.1998 though the petitioner claims to have made an application in respect of compassionate appointment immediately thereafter but the same has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not able to show the date on which, the application had been made. However, the respondents called for certain documents to consider his case on 29.6.2000, which the petitioner responded to by making his application vide Annexure-5. The respondents, however, rejected the case of the petitioner on account of nil vacancy under 5% fixed for compassionate appointment in the Direct Recruit category. The respondents explained the allegation made by the petitioner in relation to apparent contradiction in the impugned order dated 11.9.2003 and the statement made in paragraph No. 2 of the first counter affidavit by stating in the second counter affidavit that subsequently, the case of the petitioner along with 75 others, were reviewed and considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on 27.2.2004. The committee has taken into account several factors like the liabilities of the deceased employee, landed property and the family size of the deceased as also the age of the children of the deceased employee. Since only five vacancies occurred in the year 2002 under 5% of Direct Recruit Quota, five most deserving cases based on consideration of above factors were recommended for compassionate appointment while the case of others including the case of the petitioner, were rejected.