Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1115 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2004-09-30

J.S.NARANG, S.S.NIJJAR

body2004
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The father of the petitioner was employed with the respondents. On 23.5.2001, after putting in 30 years of service, he expired. On 19.6.2001, the mother of the petitioner made an application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Branch Manager at Kotkapura on September, 11, 2001. On 26.2.2002, the Divisional Officer personally came to the residence of the petitioner to verify the particulars given by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment. The senior officers also recommended the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. From February, 2002 till November, 2002, the petitioner waited for receipt of the appointment letter. However, ultimately, the petitioner received order dated 10.1.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. On notice of motion being issued to the respondents, a detailed written statement has been filed. 2. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. He was earlier employed and his brother who is aged about 27 years is also living with him. The brother has an income of Rs. 5000/ p.m. The petitioner himself is married and has a young daughter. Earlier about 4 years prior to the making of the state- ment on 14.11.2002, the petitioner had a job with a firm M/s Saraswati Extractions Private Limited. It is also recorded that the brother of the petitioner is running a small shop in which he is selling plastic bags and small plastic utensils. It is also not disputed that the petitioner alongwith his mother have been receiving the entire retrial benefits of the deceased. Having considered the entire matter, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not in such a stage of penury that he deserves to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 3. Mr. Sibai has vehemently argued that the appointment has been declined to the petitioner on wholly extraneous considerations. The employment of the petitioner for the years prior to the making of the application for appointment would be wholly irrelevant. It is however, not disputed by Mr. Sibal that the petitioner and his mother have received the retiral benefits. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is married and has a little daughter. We are unable to accept that the petitioner is not having any income. It is however, not disputed by Mr. Sibal that the petitioner and his mother have received the retiral benefits. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is married and has a little daughter. We are unable to accept that the petitioner is not having any income. It would be wholly impossible to maintain the mother, wife and a small daughter without an in- come. We are of the opinion that the respondents have correctly come to the conclusion that the facts disclosed by petitioner himself are sufficient for rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. It is a settled proposition of law that appointment on compassionate grounds can only be granted in cases of extreme poverty, to prevent the family of the deceased falling into abject destitution. The respondents have correctly rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) S.C.T. 174, after considering the entire matter has held as follows:- "For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future . 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 bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed band offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 4. From the facts narrated above, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is living in such grievous poverty that he deserves to be granted compassionate appointment in preference to millions of other youngsters who are living below the poverty line. We are of the opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner.