Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 67 (MP)

Usha Devi v. Union of India

2007-01-17

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2007
ORDER Kemkar, J. -- 1. Petitioner No.1's husband and petitioner No. 2's father late Ramsharan Tiwari was in the employment of the Department of Telecommunications of the Union of India. He died in harness on 28.3.2000. The second petitioner submitted an application in the month of May 2000 seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father. On 30.1.2002 he was informed by the respondents that his application for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected by the High Power Committee constituted by the respondents to decide such cases. On receipt of the said letter dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-7) the petitioners submitted representations (Annexure P-8 and P-9) before the respondents. The respondents informed the petitioner No.2 vide letter dated 2.2.2003 (Annexure P-10) that he has already been informed about the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 30.1.2002. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed this petition. 2. The respondents filed return and stated that the petitioners' case has been duly considered by the High Power Committee as per the guidelines for compassionate appointment. They stated that as per the guidelines of the respondents for making such appointments the eligibility criteria is that if the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution the compassionate appointment can be granted. According to the said guidelines the petitioner's case was considered and rejected by the High Power Committee by observing thus: "The Government servant, a TTA, expired on 28.3.2000 at the age of 55 years survived by his wife, two sons and one daughter. The elder son is employed as a teacher in Sarasvati Shishu Mandir and getting a salary of Rs. 1,210/- p.m. He, however, is married and living separately in the same house. The family owns a house of 5 rooms. The applicant is overage. The family pension is Rs. 3,968/- p.m. and other terminal benefits were Rs. 2,73,670/- only. Keeping in view the income and terminal benefits received by the family, it does not seem to be living in indigent conditions." 3. The petitioners contend that the terminal benefits as also the family pension is inadequate to cater the needs of the family. Petitioner No.1 is suffering from diabetes and cardiac problem and major amount is spent on medical treatment and medicines. The High Power Committee has wrongly mentioned that deceased was survived by wife, two sons and one daughter. The petitioners contend that the terminal benefits as also the family pension is inadequate to cater the needs of the family. Petitioner No.1 is suffering from diabetes and cardiac problem and major amount is spent on medical treatment and medicines. The High Power Committee has wrongly mentioned that deceased was survived by wife, two sons and one daughter. Whereas the deceased was survived by wife, two sons and two daughters. The petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others [ AIR 2000 SC 1596 ]. 4. The respondents contend that having regard to the guidelines for compassionate appointments the High Power Committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. They contend that the family of the deceased was not in indigent condition and was receiving Rs. 3,968/per month and was paid Rs. 2,73,670/- towards terminal benefits. The other daughter of the deceased was married at the time of rejection of the claim, therefore, the decision to reject the claim cannot be said to be illegal. 5. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition. It is not in dispute that the policy for compassionate appointment (Annexure R-2) provides eligibility, which is as under: "5. ELIGIBILITY (a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (b) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules." The petitioners in para 5.1 have stated that on the death of Ramsharan the petitioner No.1 received the terminal benefits of Rs. 3,93,668/- and are receiving Rs. 3,968/- per month towards family pension. In the circumstances the finding recorded by the High Power Committee that in view of the income and terminal benefits received by the family the family does not seem to be living in indigent condition cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. This finding of the High Power Committee having regard to the monthly pension and the terminal benefits does not seem to be unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Court. This finding of the High Power Committee having regard to the monthly pension and the terminal benefits does not seem to be unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Court. The decision to reject the petitioners' claim on the ground that though the deceased was survived with one more daughter but the same has not been taken into consideration, will have no bearing on the matter as the other daughter was married and living with her husband on the date of consideration of the petitioners' claim. The contention of the petitioner No.1 that she has to spend a lot for treatment of her ailment also cannot be looked into, more particularly in the absence of details of such expenditure. 6. The decision of Supreme Court in case of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others [ AIR 2000 SC 1596 ] on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case on introduction of family benefits scheme the scheme of compassionate appointment was deferred. In the circumstance, the Supreme Court has said to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would not be fair. The decision is in regard to preservation of the right to be considered for compassionate appointment in a tripartite agreement. In the present case the decision of the High Power Committee is based on the scheme of compassionate appointment which provides for compassionate appointment to be granted if the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. The finding recorded by the said committee being based on sound reasoning, needs no interference. 7. The compassionate appointment is offered to those families whose bread earner's untimely demise, leave the families in an indigent condition. This is not so in the present case. 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 sole bread earner of the family. Only deserving cases have to be found and offered compassionate appointment. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere into the matter. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.