Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 647 (UTT)

Lalita Prasad v. Union of India

2006-11-16

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2006
Judgment By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus directing the respondents to appoint petitioner in a Class IV (Group 'D') post in GREF, within the parameters of the rules applicable to said Organization. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner's father Sri C.M. Joshi (Ex-G/No. 86185 N Pioneer) was recruited in GREF, a unit of the Border Roads Organization of Government of India, w.e.f. 07-06-1965. After rendering service of23 years and 05 months, petitioner's father Sri C.M. Joshi got discharged from the service on medical invalidation w.e.f. 13-01-1989. Death certificate (Annexure-2) to the petition shows that the petitioner's father died after retirement on 20th July 1993. It appears that on 3rd July 1999, petitioner's mother submitted an application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, on attaining 18 years of age, by the petitioner. Petitioner's mother was already getting family pension of Rs. 375/- per month (revised pension Rs. 1,275/- per month). It is alleged in the petition that the family of late Sri C.M. Joshi is undergoing financial crises and deserves a compassionate appointment of the petitioner, in a Class IV post with GREF. It appears that the representation made by the mother of the petitioner was turned down by the authorities, on the ground that not only the application was beyond the period of five years, where after, it could not have been entertained, but also it did not fulfill the other requisite conditions for compassionate appointment. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The petition was contested by the respondents, who filed their counter affidavit through Colonel D. Palit. In the counter affidavit it has been admitted that petitioner's father got discharged from GREF on the ground of invalidation w.e.f. 13/14 January, 1989. It is also admitted that petitioner's mother Smt. Narayani Joshi made a representation dated 29-05-1999, for appointment of his son (petitioner) on compassionate ground. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the conditions required to be fulfilled vide Government of India's Office Memorandum No. 14014/6/94 -Estt. (D) dated 9th October, 1998, and O.M. No. 14014/23/99Estt. (D) dated 3rd December, 1999, do not get fulfilled. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the conditions required to be fulfilled vide Government of India's Office Memorandum No. 14014/6/94 -Estt. (D) dated 9th October, 1998, and O.M. No. 14014/23/99Estt. (D) dated 3rd December, 1999, do not get fulfilled. It is also clarified that the ceiling limit for appointment on compassionate ground is only five per cent of the direct recruitment available with the Organization. It is further stated that the application for appointment by the petitioner, should have been made, within one year of the discharge of the invalidated employee. The respondents' case is, that the economic status of the family is required to be assessed under the guidelines issued by the Government of India before an appointment on compassionate ground, is made. It is admitted to the respondents that the application made by the petitioner's mother was forwarded by the GREF Center to the Headquarters of Director General Boarder Roads, and after consideration the same was returned, declining the appointment. It is lastly stated in the counter affidavit, that not only the appointment was sought at highly belated stage, against the rules, but also that applicant's case did not fulfill other requisite conditions. 5. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here, that object of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide financial help to the family on the ground of invalidation / death of employee, who had served with the Organization, to whom the supplementary rules in this regard are applicable. The proper stage for financial help is when an employee dies in service or gets discharged on invalidation, not long thereafter. It is not disputed that the petitioner after discharge was getting post retiral benefits and long after his retirement, when he died his wife is being paid family pension. The restrictions imposed vide Office Memorandum No. 14014/6/94 -Estt. (D) dated 9th October, 1998 and O.M. No. 14014/23/99 -Estt. (D) dated 3rd December, 1999, cannot be said to be unreasonable and respondents have committed no error of law, in adhering the same. 6. Admittedly, the application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was made for the first time by his mother, after a long lapse of 11 years. (D) dated 3rd December, 1999, cannot be said to be unreasonable and respondents have committed no error of law, in adhering the same. 6. Admittedly, the application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was made for the first time by his mother, after a long lapse of 11 years. It is pertinent to mention here, that father of the petitioner, admittedly, got discharged on invalidation in January 1989 and petitioner's mother made application for appointment of his son on compassionate ground, on 29-05-1999. Even on that day, the petitioner was not major. He was aged around 17 years. As such, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was highly belated, as object of providing appointment on compassionate ground, is to provide help soon after the death or discharge on invalidation, and not to offer appointment at any time in all time to come. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondents have committed no error of law in declining the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, as the petitioner's case could not have been considered under the rules, without relaxation in the time allowed to make the application for appointment. It cannot be said to be a right of the petitioner in the present case, to be appointed on compassionate ground that his father got discharged from the service on invalidation. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (All pending application in this Petition also stand disposed of).