Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 988 (RAJ)

Vijay Pal Singh v. Chairman RSRTC

2002-05-14

SHASHI KANT SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of appeal, writ petition and additional affidavit of appellant filed in the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case are that late Shri Mahipal Singh was the employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). While in service he expired on 1st August, 1992. He felt behind him surviving his brother, the appellant, who also claims to be adopted son of the deceased and his widow sister Smt. Ucchav Kanwar. Late Mahipal Singh was unmarried and he allegedly had adopted the appellant under the adoption deed dated 10th July, 1988. 3. The petitioner-appellant applied for an employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents to Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975') to the Corporation for the post of LDC/Booking Clerk. The application is stated to have been made by the petitioner-appellant immediately after death of deceased. The appellant submitted in the writ petition that many times he represented his case through several representations i.e. dated 17th October, 1994, 8th February, 1995 and 20th August, 1996. His claim for appointment on compassionate ground what is stated came to be rejected by the Corporation under its communication 20th June, 1996. The writ petition out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant on 27th May, 1997 and it has beer} rejected by the learned Single. Judge vide order dated 10th August, 2000. That is how this appeal is before us. 4. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contented that the grounds given by the Corporation for rejection of the application filed by the appellant for compassionate appointment is wholly perverse. Carrying this contention further Shri Garg submitted that the deceased was unmarried and there was no necessity for the appellant to take no objection from the widow for his appointment in the Corporation on compassionate ground. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge Mr. Garg submits that the ground given for rejection of the writ petition is not correct. The appellant has applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of deceased employee of the Corporation. In case, the Corporation has taken a long time to decide his claim it cannot be-taken to be a ground for declining the relief to him. 5. Garg submits that the ground given for rejection of the writ petition is not correct. The appellant has applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of deceased employee of the Corporation. In case, the Corporation has taken a long time to decide his claim it cannot be-taken to be a ground for declining the relief to him. 5. Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal and justified. 6. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the facts of this case we are satisfied that this claim of the appellant of compassionate appointment deserves no acceptance. It is true that the reason, which has been given by the Corporation to reject his application for appointment on compassionate ground, may not be correct but merely on this ground no relief could have been ranted and rightly it is not granted in favour of the appellant by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appellant who is claiming himself to be the adopted son of his own elder brother, has lodged this claim of compassionate appointment. Under the Rules of 1975, adopted son or daughter is included in the definition of dependents. Legally adopted son or daughter by deceased Government servant can lodge his/her claim of compassionate appointment and it can be considered but in this case no cogent and satisfactory evidence is produced except a document 'Godnama' which is admittedly unregistered. Moreover, it is an adoption by the deceased on his own brother. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner appellant has his other elder brother and accordingly it is difficult to accept that he was wholly and solely dependent on his deceased brother. The petitioner appellant has not produced any cogent and satisfactory evidence on the record that he was solely and wholly dependent on his deceased brother. In these days of wholesome unemployment in the country the possibility of making of forged documents for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment cannot be ruled out. Moreover, this document is an adoption deed which in unregistered and it is difficult to accept for this claim of the petitioner appellant. For the reasons aforestated the petitioner appellant has failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that he was wholly dependent on his deceased brother. 8. Moreover, this document is an adoption deed which in unregistered and it is difficult to accept for this claim of the petitioner appellant. For the reasons aforestated the petitioner appellant has failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that he was wholly dependent on his deceased brother. 8. Appointment on compassionate ground, broadly speaking, is contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. However, having socio-economic approach, it is taken to be a reasonable restriction of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Under Article 309 of the Constitution, in the State, the Rules are framed for regulating the appointments on compassionate ground of the dependent of the Government servants dying while in service. Those rules framed by the State undisputedly adopted by the Corporation. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that mere death of all employee in harness does not entitle his family to a source of livelihood. The Government or the Public Authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased ad only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis and that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court further observed that it must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased millions of other families are there which are equally placed, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. 9. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (1994) 2 SCC 718 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking for the scope of the High Courts and Tribunals to order for compassionate appointment held as under : "The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done. In the very case itself, there are regulations and instructions governing the matter. The court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of relevant statutory provisions. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. Moreover, the High Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. No mandamus should be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law." 10. In the case of MMTC Ltd. Vs. Pramod Dei (1997) 11 SCC 390 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is held that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. The legal heirs of the deceased employee who died while in service cannot put forward a claim for appointment on compassionate ground as of right. The object and provision of giving compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Government servant dying while in service, is to enable the bereaved family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis on account of untimely demise of its own earning member. 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 as a matter of rule or right. 11. In the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar ( AIR 2000 SC 2782 ) the objects and purposes of compassionate appointment are re-stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is held that the compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to the death of the breadwinner who has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 12. 12. From catena of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is no more res integra that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered as a matter of right or rule. From the series of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court it is clearly settled that the compassionate appointment of a dependent of deceased employees is permissible to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family such an appointment is permissible but not as a matter of rule and right. In the case where a dependent of the deceased employee lodges a claim of compassionate appointment, he or she has to satisfy the court that the family of the deceased has suffered immediate financial problem and to lessen immediate hardship and distress caused by the sudden demise of the earning member of the family immediate source of livelihood needs to be provided. 13. Here in the case the petitioner appellant has failed to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the sudden financial crisis and distress has been there due to the death of the deceased employee and to mitigate this distress and hardship immediate source of livelihood is to be provided. The petitioner appellant is the brother of the deceased. His other brother is there and it cannot be taken to be a case where nobody is there to take care of his. He is equally dependent on his other brother. Moreover, when it is not established to the satisfaction of the Court that he was wholly dependent on the deceased employee, the claim made by him cannot be accepted. 14. In the application filed by the petitioner appellant it is not stated nor any material has been produced that he is not dependent on his other brother. From the document Annexure-5 filed along with the writ petition, we find that he is claiming this appointment as a rule or right. 15. The deceased employee, the elder brother of the petitioner appellant, died in the month of August, 1992 and after more than about ten years otherwise also we do not consider it to be a fit case where appointment on compassionate ground is to be given to the petitioner appellant. Possibly he would have settled by now. 15. The deceased employee, the elder brother of the petitioner appellant, died in the month of August, 1992 and after more than about ten years otherwise also we do not consider it to be a fit case where appointment on compassionate ground is to be given to the petitioner appellant. Possibly he would have settled by now. The learned Single Judge is correct in his approach not to accept this claim of the petitioner appellant on the ground that after the apse of more then eight years no relief is to be granted. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Spl. Appeal dismissed. *******