Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 705 (MP)

Kanchhedi Lal Ghasita v. Union of India

2002-07-25

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THROUGH this writ petition, order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur (CAT), dated September 7, 2000 passed in O. A. No. 716 of 2000 has been assailed. By this decision, claim of petitioner for appointment of his son on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that it is delayed and the family has survived all these years. ( 2. ) PETITIONER-KANCHHEDILAL Ghasita was working on the post of 1st Fireman in Loco Running Department, Central Railway, Jabalpur. He retired from Railway service with effect from June 20, 1988 on being declared medically unfit, and was granted pension from July 1, 1988. Petitioner has wife and two sons. He applied for appointment of his second son on compassionate ground depending on Government Notification No. GI/dept of Personnel and Training, O. M. No. 14014/6/86-Estt. (1), dated June 30, 1987 providing for compassionate appointment of son/daughter of deceased Government servant/government servant retired on medical grounds. This circular also provides lower age of 18 years. While petitioner Kanchhedilal Ghasita was medically boarded out, age of elder son was 13 years and that of younger son 10 years. Case of petitioner is that elder son Manoj Kumar is mentally underdeveloped since birth, therefore, he wants appointment of his second son Shankarlal on compassionate ground, vide application dated 5-2-1996, stating that it was difficult to maintain family with meagre pension. ( 3. ) CAT found that petitioner availed pension of Rs. 1028 plus Dear-ness Relief which stood revised on implementation of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. He has no unmarried daughters. After making application, he sent repeated representations which could not extend limitation as per decision of Apex Court in S. S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1990 SC 10 ). He approached the Tribunal on 18-8-2000, therefore, his claim was hopelessly barred by limitation. ( 4. ) SHRI N. P. Soni submits that Circular No. GI/department of Personnel and Training O. M. No. 14014/6/86-Estt. (1), dated 30-6-1987 (Annexure A-3) supports the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. According to this circular, application could be made after attainment of age of 18 years and it could also be considered after delay of five years. Therefore, first son of petitioner being mentally under-developed, he waited for another son to reach the age of 18 years. According to this circular, application could be made after attainment of age of 18 years and it could also be considered after delay of five years. Therefore, first son of petitioner being mentally under-developed, he waited for another son to reach the age of 18 years. After reaching the age of 18 years, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground. In the first place, he could apply after his son attained age of 18 years and even otherwise, delay could be condoned. ( 5. ) SHRI R. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for Railways submits that circular on which petitioner places reliance is not applicable to Railways which has competence to issue and has issued circulars with regard to compassionate appointment and those governing this case are dated 6-1-1997 and 10-2-1997. Reliance is placed on Apex Court decision in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 , which holds that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of bread-earner who had left the family in penury and without means of livelihood. When applicant becomes entitled for appointment on compassionate ground but if he happens to be minor and ineligible for appointment, there can not be reservation of a vacancy till such time he becomes major after number of years unless there are specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. ( 6. ) FACTS in the present case are, petitioner could not apply for appointment of elder son on compassionate ground stating that he is not mentally fit, though this fact does not find mention in the application dated 5-2-1996 (Annexure A-5 ). Had he applied for appointment of elder son on compassionate ground, his application could not be barred by time since he would have attained 18 years of age within five years. But this is not so. He waited for his younger son to attain the age of 18 years which took more than five years. Application dated 5-2-1996 is followed by representations, which could not extend time, therefore, CAT has rightly said that the application for compassionate appointment was barred by limitation. ( 7. ) ON merits, we have examined the matter. We are of the opinion that circular on which reliance is placed by petitioner is not applicable. Application dated 5-2-1996 is followed by representations, which could not extend time, therefore, CAT has rightly said that the application for compassionate appointment was barred by limitation. ( 7. ) ON merits, we have examined the matter. We are of the opinion that circular on which reliance is placed by petitioner is not applicable. Examined in the context of clarifications dated 6-1-1997 and 10-2-1997 placed before us by Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for Railways, an irresistible conclusion is that case of petitioner is barred by time. He could have applied for appointment on compassionate ground within five years from the date of his medical de-categorisation. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the matter to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment of his son on compassionate ground. However, it may be true that petitioner has survived all along and is getting pension from the Railways, but that would not disentitle him from seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Apart from the fact that pension is meagre and he is surviving all along, Railways have provided occasion for the wards of its employees dying in harness or medically de-categorised to seek employment on compassionate ground. Therefore, policy exists and applies irrespective of the fact that employee or his family is in receipt of pension but the eligible applicant has to apply for the same within the frame work of the rules/circulars/clarifications on the subject, otherwise in absence of any provision providing for relaxation, his case would be barred by time. Delay sometimes defeats the object and this may be one such case. However, we have no other alternative except to dismiss the claim of petitioner. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, petition is dismissed. Costs on parties.