Rejection of the application for Compassionate Appointment vide Ext.P8 order dated 5.5.2008 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner's father, who was working as a 'driver' in Government of India Text Book Press, Mysore, bid farewell to this world on 29.9.2000. Because of the sudden demise and eligibility to get appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, an application was preferred by the petitioner on 6.8.2001, followed by a representation preferred by his mother. This was responded to, as per Ext.P4 dated 9.7.2004 issued by the Assistant Manager (Admn) addressing to the mother of the petitioner stating that, Court cases were pending and hence the claim for retirement benefits and compassionate appointment will be considered in the due course. The petitioner contends that, there was total silence for quite long. It is also pointed out that the Court case referred to in Ext.P4 was preferred by another lady who claimed to be the wife of the deceased. In any view of the matter, the Court case was settled and the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application again on 21.10.2005 before the second respondent. The mother of the petitioner also made the position clear by filing a representation. Since nothing turned out in the positive, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.(C). No. 37884 of 2007, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 24.1.2008, to have the matter considered and finalized. Pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, the matter was considered and the claim was rejected as per Ext.P8 order dated 5.5.2008 which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents seeking to sustain Ext.P8, specifically pointing out that the petitioner was never a dependent of the deceased as on the relevant date. It is also stated that, the petitioner is having a wife and a child, particulars of whom are discernible from Ext.P5. As per the relevant norms of compassionate appointment, the claimant has to be a 'dependent' and the prescribed age limit is 18 to 27. But in the case of the petitioner, he was 37 years and hence over aged. There is also a contention for the respondents that the writ petition itself is not maintainable before this Court, as the cause of action arose elsewhere.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, part of the cause of action has very much arisen here, in so far as, it is the claim of the petitioner living here (for compassionate appointment) that is to be considered, instead of place of occurrence of death of the father, which occurred while he was working outside the State.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the crucial question to be considered is whether the petitioner does satisfy the requirements under the compassionate appointment scheme. As it has been made clear by the Apex Court and by this Court on many an occasion, the very principle behind compassionate appointment is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not thrown to the streets, because of the sudden and unforeseen casualty occurred in the family. But this of course is subject to the specific conditions under the Scheme and the appointment under the Scheme is not automatic.
6. Considering the question whether the petitioner was a 'dependent' of the deceased, it has to be borne in mind that, in view of the materials produced before this Court, the petitioner was a married man as on the date of the application, i.e., 6.8.2001. As discernible from Ext.P5, he was maintaining his wife and a daughter who was aged 4 years at the time of issuance of Ext.P5. This by itself is a pointer to the fact that the petitioner was maintaining a family, atleast consisting of wife and a daughter and was never depending upon the income of the deceased. That apart, there is no dispute that, he was aged 37 years and as per the relevant norms/rules, the stipulated age limit for compassionate appointment is between 18 to 27 years. The relevant clause of the Scheme in this regard is not under challenge.
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the respondents is well within the four walls of law and that the same is not assailable under any circumstances, more so when, there is no plea of malafides. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-