Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 144 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

2003-01-31

ASHOK PARIHAR, M.R.CALLA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Father of the petitioner, while working as Postal Assistant in the Postal Department, died on 7.8.1999 while in service. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The application was rejected by the department vide order dated 1.3.2001 mainly on the ground that the family of the deceased employee not been indigent. It has been mentioned in the order dated 1.3.2001 that the widow of the deceased employee has been getting pension amounting to Rs. 3025/-+D.R. per month; the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 4,84,000/- have also been paid to the family; the family is also in possession of 3 1 /2 Bighas of agricultural land and also own a residential house. 2. The order dated 1.3.2001 passed by the department was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by way of filing an appeal. After considering the reply submitted on behalf of the department, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2001 on the ground that no indigent circumstances exist in the family of deceased so as to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The order dated 24.10.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur is under challenge in the Present writ petition. 3. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, has submitted that exactly under the similar circumstances, the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal filed by one Smt. Manju Nigam, had directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the said appellant for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable, post. The order dated 20th November, 2001 passed by the Tribunal has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1812/2002, Union of India and others v. Smt. Manju Nigam, decided on 23rd September, 2002 . 4. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998(5) SCC 192 ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of. 4. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998(5) SCC 192 ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of. Bihar and another, 1996(1) SCC 301 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(4) SCC 1328 , has submitted that apart from the petitioner not been treated as indigent, the compassionate appointment can also not been given to the petitioner under the scheme as applicable in the respondent department for giving compassionate appointments. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondents that there are very limited vacancies for giving such appointments; the screening committee has considered the application of the petitioner also and found the petitioner not entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and also the judgments cited at the bar. 6. This Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Smt. Manju Nigam , under exactly similar circumstances, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India, reported in 2000 SCC (L & S) 767 has held that the retrial benefits received by the family cannot be taken into account for the purpose of denying the appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. In the present case, as has come on record, the deceased employee had two unmarried daughters at the time of his death and no other member of the family been in employment anywhere. It was only after the death of the concerned employee, one of the daughters was married and the other daughter is still unmarried. The petitioner is only son and is also unemployed. The major amount of terminal benefits has been spent in the marriage of one of the daughters and also in payment of loans taken during the life time of the father of the petitioner. It is not known as to how the respondent department has assessed the annual income worth Rs. 18,000/- from 31/2 Bighas of agricultural land possessed by the family of the deceased. It is not known as to how the respondent department has assessed the annual income worth Rs. 18,000/- from 31/2 Bighas of agricultural land possessed by the family of the deceased. Since the retrial benefits received by the family cannot be taken into account for the purpose of denying the appointment on compassionate grounds; the application of the petitioner having been rejected mainly on the ground of family having received the retrial benefits; in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it a fit case for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.10.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur is set aside. The respondent department is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post within a period of two months form the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Writ Petition allowed - Judgment of Tribunal set aside - Respondent department directed to consider petitioner's case for appointment within two months. *******