Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10599 of 2013
Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal,Alld. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Bihari,Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,P.D. Tripathi,Rajiv Singh,S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. The dispute relates to compassionate appointment.
2. The claim of petitioner was non suited by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 passed in Original Application No. 981 of 2009, rejecting the same on the ground that as per scheme of compassionate appointment applicable to respondents, petitioner was considered, but not found within available vacancies for compassionate appointment.
3. Tribunal after having due consideration to pleadings and arguments advanced by both counsel have come to the conclusion that case of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered after a lapse of about 16 years as it would be against very nature and concept of scheme of compassionate appointment. This judgment was passed by Tribunal in 2012 and father of petitioner died on 11.10.1995. Now, it is more than 22 years and presently petitioner is about 48 years of age, therefore, even otherwise by no stretch of imagination claim of petitioner for appointment can be allowed at this stage, as it would be contrary to very concept of scheme of compassionate appointment.
4. Purpose of compassionate appointment is not for providing a post against post. It is not reservation in service by virtue of succession. If family is not in penury and capable to maintain itself for a long time, no mandamus would be issued after a long time for providing compassionate appointment to a legal heir of deceased employee.
5. Repeatedly, it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and secure to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bore sustenance.
6. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak 1997 (11) SCC 390, Court said:
"As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tied over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment."
7. In S. Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ 539, Court said:
"The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
8. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2230, Court said:
"The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood."
9. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2782 it was held:
"compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood"
10. In Punjab Nation Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja AIR 2004 SC 4155, court said:
"It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis."
11. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by Court in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6) SCC 436, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23. In the later case Court said:
"compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased- employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years."
12. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath AIR 1998 SC 2612, Court said:
"The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case."
13. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi JT 2002 (3) SC 485 = 2002 (10) SCC 246 the Court said:
"As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family "
14. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 106, Court said:
"It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises."
15. In State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmed AIR 2006 SC 2743, Court said:
"Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." (emphasis added)
16. Following several earlier authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122 = JT 2009 (6) SC 624, Court said:
"The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
17. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481, Court said:
"The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service."
18. Court considered that father of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey (supra) became untraceable in 1981 and for about 18 years family could survive and successfully faced and overcame financial difficulties. In these circumstances it further held:
"That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions."
19. In I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC 162, Court said:
"Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion."
20. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2008 (11) SCC 384, Court held that now a well settled principle of law is that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or public sector undertakings is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over sudden financial crises.
21. The importance of penury and indigence of the family of the deceased employee and need to provide immediate assistance for compassionate appointment has been considered in Union of India (UOI) & Anr. Vs. B. Kishore 2011(4) SCALE 308. This is relevant to make the provisions for compassionate appointment valid and constitutional else the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court said:
"If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
22. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give immediate relief against destitution. It is not a provision to provide alternate employment or an appointment commensurate with the post held by the deceased employee. It is not by way of giving similarly placed life to the dependents of the deceased. While considering the provision pertaining to relaxation under Rules, 1974 the very object of compassionate appointment cannot be ignored. This is what has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Madhulika Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & ors. 2011 (3) ADJ 91.
23. We, therefore, find no merits in the petition.
24. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Ravi Prakash