Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 765 (MP)

Virendra Bahadur Singh v. Union of India(UOI)

2003-06-24

BHAWANI SINGH, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THROUGH this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Branch, dated October 30, 2000, passed in O. A. No. 892/2000. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, petitioner is the son of late Shri V. B. Singh, an employee of Department of Telecommunications, Jabalpur. After having reached almost the fag end of service, he died on 17-2-1990. He left behind 6 family members : widow, 3 daughters and 2 sons. Sequel to the death of late Shri V. B. Singh, the family got Rs. 1,45,316. 00 towards G. P. F. , D. C. R. G. , C. G. E. G. I. S. and leave encashment. Besides terminal benefits, family pension of Rs. 1,187. 00 p. m. is released in favour of the family. Case of the petitioner was rejected on 22-5-1992. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents did not advance cogent reasons for this rejection, although all particulars sought by the respondents were furnished. Respondents submit that the deceased died after rendering nearly 36 years service. The family received not only monthly pension of Rs. 1,187. 00, but also terminal benefit of Rs. 1,45,316. 00. Further statement is that compassionate appointment is provided to 5% general vacancy candidates and it can be offered to really deserving candidates. The matter of petitioner was referred to Verification Committee which visited the residence of late Shri V. B. Singh. Report submitted by the Committee to the High Power Committee is that the family owns and resides in a Pakka House of 5 rooms, built on plot area of 60 x 40; widow of the deceased receives rent of Rs. 300. 00 per month by letting out some portion of the house; she is getting monthly pension of Rs. 1,187. 00 and has already received Rs. 1,45,316. 00 by way of terminal benefits against the items mentioned hereinabove. The High Power Committee considered the matter on 27-5-1991 and found that it was not a suitable case for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the claim was rejected and petitioner informed. ( 3. ) COMPASSIONATE appointment is offered to those families whose bread earners untimely demise leaves the family in an indigent condition. This is not so in the present case. Petitioner relies on Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. Accordingly, the claim was rejected and petitioner informed. ( 3. ) COMPASSIONATE appointment is offered to those families whose bread earners untimely demise leaves the family in an indigent condition. This is not so in the present case. Petitioner relies on Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. [ (1996) 8 SCC 23 ], while Shri R. S. Patel on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. |jt 1994 (3) SC 525] and Union of India v. Joginder Sharma [jt 2002 (7) SC 425]. ( 4. ) GIVING serious consideration to the matter, we arc unable to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner. Claim of the petitioner was rejected on 22-5-1992 and application challenging this order of rejection has been filed in 2000 before the CAT, after 8 years. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that even after rejection of the case in 1992, petitioner continued to represent for compassionate appointment. After rejection of the case in 1992, petitioner should have approached the Court instead of filing representations which would not extend the limitation. There fore, on ground of laches, the matter is liable to be rejected. ( 5. ) EVEN on merits, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Deceased died on 17-2-1990 and the family has survived for more than 12 years. It is not pointed out how, in the face of statement by respondents, the family is still in financial distress. Object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and relieving the family from financial distress due to the death of the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, this type of appointment can not be offered. As a matter of course, only deserving cases have to be found and offered compassionate appointments, more particularly when respondents have kept only 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group c and d posts for compassionate appointment. Decision of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is of no assistance to advance the submission raised by him. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Costs on parties.