Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking compassionate appointment under the opposite parties in view the death of his father on 17.7.1996 during employment.
The father of the petitioner, who was a peon in the Punjab National Bank, died on 17.7.1996, while in service. On 24.7.1996, the mother of the petitioner, i.e., the wife of late Shri Ram Jaiswal submitted an application for compassionate appointment of her son, i.e., the petitioner. As the step son of late Shri Ram Jaiswal was not looking after his family, the respondent bank called the petitioner for interview/selection on 9.11.1996 for appointment in the clerical cadre for which he possessed the requisite qualification. However, the selection committee did not find him suitable for such appointment. In this regard Annexure CA-2 has been filed by the respondent along with the counter affidavit containing specific reasons regarding his unsuitability for such compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the competent authority rejected the candidature of the petitioner and informed the Zonal Office, which, in turn, informed the Regional Office vide letter dated 30.1.1997 about the said rejection. Based thereon, the impugned order dated 28.4.1997 was issued to the petitioner informing him about the rejection of his claim. Subsequently, the wife of the deceased requested for considering the claim of her daughter Km. Rekha Jaiswal, which was considered by the respondents, but the same was also rejected on 28.3.1997/8.4.1999. Once again a request was made by the wife of the deceased for reconsidering the claim of her daughter, which was reconsidered, but did not find favour with the respondents. Accordingly, the same was communicated to the mother vide letter dated 20.1.2000.
The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2003. The writ petition was dismissed, but the dismissal order was quashed in Special Appeal filed by the petitioner and on remand an amendment application was filed by the petitioner. The writ petition, as it originally stood, did not raise any challenge to the order dated 28.4.1997. It was only on 11.4.2014 that the amendment filed in this regard was allowed and the said order was challenged by way of an amendment.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28.4.1997 is a non speaking order, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and his case is required to be reconsidered.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents bank, submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered as per then prevailing scheme of compassionate appointment, but he, having been found unsuitable for compassionate appointment was not eligible for the same. He also submitted that the petitioner, in fact, abandoned his claim in view of the subsequent claim raised by his mother on behalf of his sister Km. Rekha Jaiswal, which was also rejected on 20.3.1997/8.4.1999. and 20.1.2000. The said orders were never challenged. The writ petition itself was filed belatedly. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but is dependent upon the financial condition of the family. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner's sister, it had also been taken into consideration that the family pension was being paid to their mother and they also owned some immovable property. He further submitted that a new scheme came into operation in the year 2004. However, the case of the petitioner had already been rejected under the then scheme.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel and having perused the record, the Court is of the view that more than 17 years have lapsed since the death of the petitioner's father.
The object of providing a compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis of the family. Such appointment is also dependent upon the financial condition of the family. Merely because a person has died in harness, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The legal position in this regard is well settled and a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014(2) ADJ 312 has also formulated the principles which govern compassionate appointment, after taking into account various Supreme Court decisions referred therein.
In the instant case, the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment as per the then existing scheme but was found unsuitable, as is evident from Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent bank. Moreover, the petitioner appears to have abandoned his claim in favour of his sister, who was also considered for such appointment and her candidature was rejected but the same has not been challenged.
In view of the Full Bench decision in Shiv Kumar Dubey case (supra) and the Supreme Court decisions, referred therein, apart from the unsuitability of the petitioner, as assessed by the respondents in the year 1997 itself, the object of providing compassionate appointment being to enable the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis, as the family has survived for more than 17 years, it can be reasonably said that the object of such compassionate appointment has ceased to exist in the case of the petitioner, therefore, no compassionate appointment can be offered to him, as per law, at this belated stage.
In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any error.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2014 sc