Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1477 (RAJ)

Sunil Singh Charan v. Chairman & Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyt Vitran Ltd. , Ajmer

2003-11-03

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned termination order Annx.2 dated 2.1.2003 as well as the impugned relieving order Annx. 3 dated 4.1.2003. 2. Petitioner's father died while in service on 13.6.2001 and vide order dated 3.9.2001 petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated 2.1.2003 (Annx.2), the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner obtained appointment on compassionate ground by concealing material fact and filing false affidavit given by his mother though his elder brothers Mr. Subhash Singh and Sanjai Singh were already employed in Education Department. Vide impugned order Annx.3 dated 4.1.2003, the petitioner stood relieved after termination. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is settled legal proposition that employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right as has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, every appointment in public office must be made in strict adherence to the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception to provide employment on compassionate ground has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the grieved family which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family the source of livelihood. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provisions of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Thus, the consistent view taken by the Court had been that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, not being the vested right. 5. In Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hakim Singh, 1998(1) SCT 511 (SC) : JT 1997(8) SC 332 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an 'ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.' 6. v. Hakim Singh, 1998(1) SCT 511 (SC) : JT 1997(8) SC 332 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an 'ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.' 6. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar & Anr., 1996(2) SCT 778 (SC) : (1996) 8 SCC 23 , the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions." 7. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & ors., 1998(2) SCT 791 (SC) : (1998) 5 SCC 192 , the Apex Court has observed that 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. Out of pure humantarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to meet both the ends, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased Government employee who may be eligible for such appointment. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1998(4) SCT 221 (Raj.) : RLW 1998(1) RLW 666 , while dealing with the issue, observed that the object and purpose of providing the employment on compassionate ground is to redeem the family which has lost its bread-earner and not to create any new mode of recruitment for dependant of the Government servant and it cannot be claimed as a vested right. 9. 9. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000(4) SCT 323 (SC) : JT 2000(10) SC 156 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the purpose of the rules providing for compassionate employment is only 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 puniary and without any means of livelihood, but such an appointment cannot be held as if a reservation for the dependents of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. 10. In S. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 9 SCC 458 , appellant's mother while in service of Municipality died when the appellant was 12/13 years old and his two brothers were already employed and his father was receiving pension. Ten years later the appellant applied for and given compassionate appointment by the municipality. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appellant's compassionate appointment was unwarranted and ratification thereof was rightly refused by the Government. Similarly, in State of H.P. & Anr. v. Jalli Devi, (1997) 5 SCC 301 , the Apex Court held that where a son of the deceased employee was already in Government service, the High Court has erred in interfering with the denial of compassionate appointment by the department to another son of the same deceased employee. 11. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Anr., 1994(2) SCT 548 (SC) : (1994) 2 SCC 718 , the Supreme Court held that courts cannot order appointment on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of statutory regulations and instructions. 12. In Divisional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Radha Krishna, 2002(1) SCT 204 (SC) : (2001) 10 SCC 61 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "The settlement reveals that 10% vacancies on the post of Conductor are reserved in the Corporation for the children of the employees dying in harness or retiring from service on their completing 55 years, or 25 years service etc. subject to the condition mentioned therein. However, mere absence of specific mention that only one child is to be absorbed makes no difference. The normal reading of the settlement makes out that the object is to provide employment to one child of such employee to render economic help and stability to such family. Unless it is specifically provided, one cannot read more than one. However, mere absence of specific mention that only one child is to be absorbed makes no difference. The normal reading of the settlement makes out that the object is to provide employment to one child of such employee to render economic help and stability to such family. Unless it is specifically provided, one cannot read more than one. If it is read otherwise then it could also be for three, four or five children of the same employee. By such interpretation the very purpose and spirit of the circular and settlement would be lost." 13. Thus, in a case where employment on compassionate ground can be refused, if other member of the family is already in service or family's financial position is good, the right cannot be held to be a vested right. 14. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the grounds that his appointment was made in violation of the provisions of relevant rules pertaining to compassionate appointment. The elder brothers of the petitioner, viz. Mr. Subhash Singh and Mr. Sanjai Singh were already the employees in the Education Department and as such, as per rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, appointment could not be given to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 reads as under:- "Appointment subject to certain conditions:- When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself." 15. Thus, Compassionate appointment is meant for a dependant of a serving Government employee dying in harness to tide over the immediate impecunious condition of the family created by the employee's death. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself." 15. Thus, Compassionate appointment is meant for a dependant of a serving Government employee dying in harness to tide over the immediate impecunious condition of the family created by the employee's death. As per rule 10(3) of the Rules, 1996 the application for compassionate employment should be filed within 90 days from the date of death of the employee and it should be supported by an affidavit giving details of family members and the income of the family members from all the sources. In the instant case, in the affidavit Annx.R/5 filed by the mother of the petitioner and submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application for compassionate appointment, there is no mention regarding employment of petitioner's brothers and the income of the family from all the sources. As such, the appointment of the petitioner was against the provisions of rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 and when this fact came to the knowledge of the respondent-Authority, the respondents passed the impugned termination order and ultimately relieved the petitioner after termination of his services. 16. Petitioner obtained the appointment on compassionate ground knowing it fully well that his elder brothers were already in service. He is guilty of concealing this material fact. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, the matter was considered by the respondents and ultimately his services were put to an end. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned termination order Annx.2 and the relieving order Annx.3. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******