The petitioners are the wife and daughter of one Sri.K.G.Vijayaraghavan, who was employed as Postal Assistant under respondents 2 and 3. He died while in service on 5/6/2002, after completing more than 23 years. Admittedly, the petitioners are receiving Family Pension on account of death of Sri.K.G.Vijayaraghavan. The 2nd petitioner had completed her Pre-Degree course and she had submitted Ext.P1 application seeking employment under respondents 2 and 3 on compassionate grounds. Rejection of the application was intimated through Ext.P2 letter issued by the 3rd respondent, stating that the committee by name 'Circle Relaxation Committee' attached to the office of the 2nd respondent had considered the application on 28/09/2005, but did not recommended the 2nd petitioner stating the reason that the compassionate ground appointment is intended only to render immediate assistance to the family of the person who dies in harness. Further it is stated that only deserving cases can be approved to fulfill objective of the scheme and that the family is not in an indigent circumstances. It is challenging Ext.P2 this writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioners had contended that Ext.P2 is a totally non-speaking order and proper reasoning for rejection of the claim was not mentioned. It is further contended that the denial was made in violation of principle of natural justice, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. Ext.P2 is challenged as one issued without application of mind showing arbitrariness and discrimination.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is mentioned that, the application submitted by the 2nd petitioner was considered by the Committee and it was rejected on the ground that the family was not in an indigent circumstances. It is further mentioned that there were several applicants for compassionate appointment and it became necessitated to ensure that only the most deserving cases are approved for compassionate appointments. Contention that the family of the petitioners are living in penury is strongly denied. The petitioners are eligible to get family pension and they have received all the reliefs connected with the death of the employee, is the finding. It is stated that the family is possessed of a house and 7 cents of land. Both the children of the deceased employee are grown up and educated. It was also noticed that the 2nd petitioner had already submitted that the liability existed has already been re-paid. It is pointed out that appointment under the compassionate scheme is provided only to fill up 5% of the existing vacancies, as per Ext.R1 circular issued by the Central Government. Further it is mentioned that the Government had dispensed with the system of maintaining waiting list. Therefore it became imperative to ensure that only the most deserving cases are approved under the scheme.
4. The respondents have pointed out the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V.State of Haryana & Ors. [JT 1994 (3) SC 525] it is held that only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate grounds. The whole object is to enable the family to tide over a sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. According to the respondents on an analytical assessment of the financial condition of the family of the petitioners, the case was not found very deserving and hence rejected.
5. The petitioners have not based their claim on any violation of provisions contained in the scheme in question. On the other hand, their contention is mainly with respect to cryptic nature of impugned order alleging non application of mind. But it is evident that the respondents could able to illustrate reasons for rejection of the application. As observed by the honourable Supreme Court, the scheme itself is one provided as a concession to tide over an unforeseen situation or a sudden crisis to relieve the family from financial destitution. Going by the reasoning mentioned by the respondents with respect to receipt of terminal benefits, family pension and the assets of the deceased etc., it cannot be said that there existed any financial destitutions. Further it is noticed that children of the deceased employee are having sufficient education. At any rate, the death occurred as early as on 05/06/2002. At this point of time in the year 2014, after a period of 12 years, there is no meaning in directing the respondents to re-consider the application, since it cannot be said that the compassionate employment is sought for in order to tide over a sudden crisis, which was unforeseen and put the family to financial destitution.
Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL