Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 228 (JK)

Shoukat Hussain v. Union Of India

2002-07-26

S.K.GUPTA, T.S.DOABIA

body2002
Father of the appellant was holding the post of Post Master on substantive basis. On 12-10-1994 he was a victim of cross-firing between militants and security forces at Banihals. He died on the spot. The mother of the appellant submitted an application on 1-11-1994. She wanted her son, the present appellant to be given compassionate appointment. Respondents were of the view that the application should be on a prescribed format. The procedural steps were taken, As per the appellant, her mother was informed that the claims of the appellant would be considered on his attaining age of 18 years. Correspondence took place between the appellant and the respondent authorities, Some of the facts which emerge in this regard are as under: (i) On 5-6-1995, the mother of the appellant was informed that the case of the appellant would be taken up when he attains the age of 18 years; (ii) On 3-10-1995, the appellant passed his Matriculation examination; (iii) On 14-1-1996, the appellant attained the age of majority; (iv) On 2-2-1999 information obtained that there is nothing adverse against the appellant; (v) On 11-5-1999 the appellant was called upon to appear before the Div. Inspector General, Post Offices, with documents indicating the date of birth and property certificate; 2. It was on 21-8-2000, the appellant was informed that it would not be possible to offer compassionate appointment to the appellant. The mother of the appellant made yet another compassionate appeal. In the letter so written she stated -- (i) that she is looking after five children; (ii) that the facts and figures regarding her income as Rs 49,000/- are not correct; (iii) that terminal benefits were given to the extent at Rs. 85,600; (iv) that a sum of Rs. 6000/- which has been shown as pension is likely to decrease, As there was no favourable response she preferred a writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed. The financial status of the mother of the appellant was taken note of. What is stated by the learned Single Judge in this regard is being quoted below : "In this case, mother of the petitioner not only received ex-gratia payment from the State, but is also receiving monthly pension of Rs 6212/- and also an income of Rs 167/- per month. What is stated by the learned Single Judge in this regard is being quoted below : "In this case, mother of the petitioner not only received ex-gratia payment from the State, but is also receiving monthly pension of Rs 6212/- and also an income of Rs 167/- per month. This income would place the petitioner and family of the deceased well above the poverty line." Stand of the respondents be also noticed. 3. It is stated that if the appointments are to be made on compassionate grounds then the financial status on which the family is placed is required to be taken note of. The fact that the family of the petitioner was paid Rs. 85, 600/- as retiral benefits and had also received Rs 1,00,000/- from the State Government as ex-gratia relief and the fact that some pensionary benefits are also being received are projected. It has further been stated that quota of 5% is met for giving compassionate appointments. This quota stood exhausted and therefore, the claim of the appellant could not be considered. Ultimately, it has been urged is that the financial status of the family is not such which required compassionate appointment to be made. The stand taken in this regard is being re-produced below : "In the present case the mother of the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs. 6379/- besides a monthly income of Rs 2014/- of the petitioner besides having assets of approximately 2 Lakhs out of which Rs. 85,623/- have been received from the department and Rs 1 Lac as per Annexure-2 from state authorities. In totality the family of the deceased cannot be said to be in indigent circumstances as per the eligibility condition(a). It is further stated that the petitioner at the time of the death of his father was minor and thus was not eligible as per eligibility condition (b) because there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after number of years as the very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets the immediate relief." 4. It is this factor which prevailed the learned Single Judge to reject the claim of the appellant. The appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 5. It is this factor which prevailed the learned Single Judge to reject the claim of the appellant. The appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on number of decisions with a view to contend that compassionate appointment was rightly declined. One of the judgments on which reliance has been placed is State of J&K v. Mohinder Singh, 2001 KLJ 44. In the aforementioned judgment it was observed that the compassionate appointment cannot be given after a gap of seven years. The fact that the family income of Rs 2000/- PM was taken note of. Another judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court is Jaspal Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001 (3) SCT 341. In the said case the widow was getting pension at the rate of Rs 3940/- PM. She had received a sum of Rs 66,482/- as leave encashment; Rs 30.000/.- as Group Insurance Scheme; Ex-gratia grant of Rs 50,000/- GPF of Rs. 80,079 and G.P.F Insurance of Rs. 10,000/-. It was held that she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. In addition to this reliance has been placed on the decisions which have been quoted in the judgment under appeal. 6. Thus what has basically led to the rejection of the claim of the appellant and what has prevailed the learned Single Judge is the financial position as indicated above. 7. The financial position of a particular person does not depend upon the amount available with the mother. As to what is the size of the family, which the mother of the appellant was supposed to take care of and whether after meeting the day to day expenses she is able to spend for herself, are some matters which are required to be considered. The grant of retiral benefits is a normal feature and if this factor is to be taken note of then there can hardly a person, who would be eligible for seeking the compassionate appointment. Post retiral benefits are benefits which accrue on the death of the bread winner are normally payable. Therefore, this single factor would not stand in the way of the appellant. Post retiral benefits are benefits which accrue on the death of the bread winner are normally payable. Therefore, this single factor would not stand in the way of the appellant. As a matter of fact this was not the factor which stood in his way, what has stood in the way of the appellant in that quota of 5% vacancies has since been utilized. 8. The aforementioned observations are supported by the Scheme of Compassionate appointment 1998. Sub-para (c) of para 6 is relevant. The same is re-produced below : (c) The scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by the Government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government servants dying in harness/retired on medical grounds, An application for compassionate appointment should however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc. 9. It be seen that the appellant attained the age of 18 years in 1996. For three years his case was under process. As to what was the quota available during this period was required to be taken note of. This was not a case of delay. As a matter of fact the Union of India and its functionaries had assured that as soon as the appellant attains the age of 18 years his case would be processed. As a matter of fact his case was under process. The delay if any, in settling the matter lay with the respondents and not with the appellants. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, Respondents are directed to re-consider the issue. In doing so they would examine the income and also the size of the family. As a matter of fact his case was under process. The delay if any, in settling the matter lay with the respondents and not with the appellants. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, Respondents are directed to re-consider the issue. In doing so they would examine the income and also the size of the family. They would also examine the number of vacancies which are available in the year 1996 and during the years when the matter was under consideration. They would also examine the question that in offering and filling the vacancies, what was the criteria adopted and as to why the appellant could not be accommodated. 11. These are all questions on which decision has to be taken by the respondents. They would do so now within a period of three months from the date copy of the judgment becomes available by the appellant to the respondents.