Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 466 (JHR)

Ram Kumar Ram v. Union of India

2010-04-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith issue appointment letter to him on compassionate grounds under the scheme of compassionate appointment as •floated by the Government of India. 3. The claim of the petitioner is based on the ground that his father late Taken Ram was a permanent employee under the Respondent NO.3 and had died in harness and the petitioner, alongwith his widow mother and the petitioner's wife were dependents on the earnings of the deceased, the prayer for compassionate appointment was made. 4. The petitioner's case, as explained by the counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner's father had died on 22.3.2000. Thereafter an application was filed by the mother of the petitioner before the concerned authorities of the respondents praying for grant of compassionate appointment to her son, namely, the present petitioner. The concerned authorities of the respondents have• though received the application (Annexure-2) in November, 2000, but for a long time the petitioner had received no information from the respondents about the decision taken if any, upon the application. However, by a letter dated 30.5.2001, the petitioner's mother was informed that her application for compassionate appointment for her son was rejected. 5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Scheme for compassionate appointment as floated by the Central Government, the petitioner being a dependent of the deceased employee, was certainly entitled for compassionate appointment against 5% of the existing number of vacancies. Referring to the specific clause in this regard in the Government Scheme, learned counsel submits that it was only after considering this aspect that this Court by its order dated 27.11.2006 had directed the respondents to inform as to how many persons were appointed. against the 5% vacancies reserved for compassionate appointment during the relevant period and also to inform as to whether the petitioner's case was accorded due consideration. The respondents did not comply with the directions promptly and they had filed their supplementary counter affidavit only on 14.11.2008. 6. against the 5% vacancies reserved for compassionate appointment during the relevant period and also to inform as to whether the petitioner's case was accorded due consideration. The respondents did not comply with the directions promptly and they had filed their supplementary counter affidavit only on 14.11.2008. 6. Denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents would first refer to the Scheme for compassionate appointment as floated by the Central Government and explain that the object of the Scheme for compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of the Government servant dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, is only to relieve the family of• the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Referring to the relevant clauses under the scheme, learned counsel refers to Clause-5 which relates to the eligibility of the candidates for compassionate appointment and submits that for the grant of compassionate appointment the eligibility criteria is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner's case, as per the application submitted on his behalf by his mother, was duly considered by the Screening Committee and after considering the case from all relevant angles in the light of the various clauses under the Scheme, the petitioner's candidature was rejected and communication of such order of rejection was made to the petitioner by letter (Annexure5). Learned counsel explains that even as admitted in the application submitted 9Y the petitioner's mother, the family, after the death of the deceased Government servant, had received the entire amount of retiral benefits which was payable in the account of the deceased employee including a sum of Rs. 2,29,268/- by way of Gratuity besides Dearness Allowance and Pension and it was found that upon receipt of such substantial amounts, the family was given immediate relief to tide over any financial crisis which they may have undergone immediately after the death of the deceased Government servant. In addition, a sum of Rs. 4,485/towards pension and interest on the deposited amount is being received by the family regularly every month. In addition, a sum of Rs. 4,485/towards pension and interest on the deposited amount is being received by the family regularly every month. The Screening Committee has also found that besides the financial benefits which the family had received, the son being a major, for whose appointment the claim was made, was not a dependent on the earnings of the dedeased Government servant and upon such consideration, the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the documents on record. 8. Admittedly, immediately upon the death of the deceased Government servant, his widow and other members of the family had received substantial amount of money which had accrued by way of retiral benefits, in the account of the deceased employee and in addition, a regular amount to the extent of Rs. 4,484/- per month is also being received by the widow of the deceased. As per the declarations contained in the counter affidavit of the respondents, the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment was duly considered by the Screening Committee and after making a thorough study of all the relevant factors and the guidelines as laid down in the. Central Government's Scheme for compassionate appointment, it was found that the petitioner had not acquired the eligibility for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of the guidelines particularly under Clause 5 of the Scheme. The decision was also communicated to the petitioner. The issue as to the number of vacancies existing against the 5% reserved quota for compassionate appointment, is no more of any relevance in view of the fact that the petitioner's case was admittedly considered and the petitioner was not found eligible according to the standards prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.