Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1608 (PNJ)

Prem Lal Sharma v. State Of Haryana

2008-09-18

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Vide this petition, the petitioner, who already has been appointed as Peon in the office of the Director, Department of Agriculture, Haryana on compassionate grounds, is seeking appointment on a Class-Ill post again on compassionate grounds. 2. The facts are that the petitioner is the adopted son of Smt. Sevti Devi, who was employed as a Peon in the office of the Director, Department of Agriculture. Haryana. While she was in service, she died on 27.08.1992. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14 09.1992, wherein he made a request that he be appointed on Class-Ill post under the ex-gratia scheme and also submitted a Succession Certificate. The department rejected the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 30.10.1994 on the ground that the petitioner could not be adopted as at the time of adoption i.e. 19.11.1990, the petitioner was 21 years of age, which was more than the prescribed age of 15 years according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption Act, 1956. 3. The petitioner preferred CWP No. 14346 of 1998 in this Court. A Lok Adalat was held in the High Court and in the same, an order dated 01.12.1999 was passed, wherein direction was issued to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Secretary, Agriculture and also to the competent authority to sympathetically consider the representation and to take a decision within a period of three months thereon. The petitioner, in compliance with the directions of the Court, submitted a fresh representation on 07.12.1999 on which opportunity of personal hearing was given to him by the Commissioner, Agriculture. The Commissioner, at that stage by taking a lenient view decided to grant the petitioner appointment on the 4th class post under the compassionate scheme of the Government and also the gratuity amount due, passed by the Commissioner, Agriculture, issued appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Peon vide order dated 31.03.2000. The petitioner, accordingly, joined on the post of Peon in the office of the Director, Department of Agriculture, Haryana. 4. The petitioner after a period of seven years served a legal notice dated 14.06.2007 in which he claimed appointment on Class-Ill post i.e. Clerk on the ground that as per the Rules/Instructions, which were prevalent in the year 1992, the compassionate appointment was to be offered in accordance with the qualifications possessed the petitioner. 4. The petitioner after a period of seven years served a legal notice dated 14.06.2007 in which he claimed appointment on Class-Ill post i.e. Clerk on the ground that as per the Rules/Instructions, which were prevalent in the year 1992, the compassionate appointment was to be offered in accordance with the qualifications possessed the petitioner. Since the petitioner was fully eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk or any other Class-Ill post, he was entitled to appointment on Class-Ill post and not on a Class-!V post. The said legal notice was decided by the Director, Department of Agriculture, Haryana-respondent No. 2 on 13.02.2008 (Annexure P-3), wherein giving all details regarding the case of the petitioner, a well reasoned speaking order was passed, wherein his claim for appointment on Class- Ill post was rejected, it is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. K.G. Chadhary, counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has been wrongly appointed on a Class-IV post when he was entitled to be appointed on a Class-Ill post as per the instructions prevalent at the time when his mother died. He has applied for a Class-Ill post in accordance with the instructions prevalent then and, therefore, was entitled to appointment on the said post. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the case in hand and the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. This is a classic case where the lust of a man has refused to die despite of having received for which he probably was not entitled to. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment was and is to assist the family of the deceased employee to overcome the emergency situation arising from the loss of the bread-earner by forwarding the helping hand by providing of employment by the Government on compassionate ground. This principle of compassionate appointment although contrary to the general principle, wherein merit and competition has been given goby but since it is an exception to the general Rule and the same is with an intention to bring out the family, from the shock situation, which has all of a sudden arisen. The Courts have given their sanction thereto. This principle of compassionate appointment although contrary to the general principle, wherein merit and competition has been given goby but since it is an exception to the general Rule and the same is with an intention to bring out the family, from the shock situation, which has all of a sudden arisen. The Courts have given their sanction thereto. It has been held in various judgments that if the family of the deceased employee survives for quite a reasonable long time without any assistance or employment, the dependent of the deceased employee is not entitled to employment. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana and others, 1994(3) RSJ 31 in para-2 has held : "2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide w giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basts of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule, which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of any employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penuary and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family, post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family, post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crises that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class-Ill and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose: It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affair, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 8. In the present case, Smt. Sevti Devi, a Peon in the office of the Director died on.27.08.1992. The petitioner Prem Lal Sharma, an adopted son of Smt Sevti Devi was informed in 1994 that he is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. He prefers a writ petition in 1998, which was disposed of on 01.12.1999. Although a period of 8 years had elapsed from the date of the death of Sevti Devi but still due to the lenient view having been taken, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment. He prefers a writ petition in 1998, which was disposed of on 01.12.1999. Although a period of 8 years had elapsed from the date of the death of Sevti Devi but still due to the lenient view having been taken, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment. A sympathetic view was taken by the respondents in granting him appointment on the post of a Peon in 2000. The petitioner without any protest takes up the appointment and exhausts his right of compassionate appointment on such joining. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment having been served, which primarily is to help out the family, which has lost a bread-earner of the family. The petitioner has no right now to turn around and say that he was entitled to a Class-Ill post and that too after a period of 8 years from the date of his appointment. 9. In 1990, when the petitioner was adopted, he was 21 years of age and when Sevti Devi died, he would have been 23 years of age. It is hard to believe that he would be dependent on a mother, who had adopted him just two years before her death. The petitioner should thank his stars for having been appointed on the post of a Peon without having gone through the process of selection. He cannot be allowed to encash the death of his mother, which actually exposes the lustful nature of the petitioner. The policy of compassionate appointment has not been formulated to satisfy the desires of people such as the petitioner. We have gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2008, which is a well reasoned and considered order and we do not find any illegality therein. We have no hesitation in upholding the same. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.