Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 437 (PAT)

Rakesh Kumar Rai v. Union of India

2012-03-13

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging letter dated 10.07.2006 by the Principal R.T.C. IV C.R.P.F C/O 56 A.P.O. Sri Nagar by which the application filed by the petitioners for appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground due to the death of his father on 07.11.2000 in harness while posted as Head Constable was rejected and also for a direction to the respondent-authority to appoint petitioner no.1 on a suitable post on compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the death of the said employee, his widow namely Vimla Rai (Petitioner no.2) along with his son Rakesh Kumar Rai (petitioner no.1) filed an application before the authority concerned for appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected by the authorities by the impugned order dated 10.07.2006 only on the ground that the eldest son of the deceased is already in service in the C.R.P.F under D-51 Battalion. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the eldest son of the deceased was appointed much prior to the death of his father and he was separate from the petitioners since then and hence his service cannot be impediment in the way of compassionate appointment of petitioner no.1 who has to maintain his old mother petitioner no.2. 4. He also states that this fact had been specifically raised by the petitioners before the authorities concerned and had also been stated in paragraph 7 of this writ petition, but the authorities did not pay attention to the said facts and did not even hold an inquiry which was necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this connection, he refers to a decision of a bench of this Court in case of Smt. Nazma Bano and Anr Vs. Indian Lac Research Institute & Ors. reported in 2000(2) PLJR 778 . He relies upon paragraphs 6, 9 and 11 of the said decision which reads as follows:- “6. In this connection, he refers to a decision of a bench of this Court in case of Smt. Nazma Bano and Anr Vs. Indian Lac Research Institute & Ors. reported in 2000(2) PLJR 778 . He relies upon paragraphs 6, 9 and 11 of the said decision which reads as follows:- “6. From perusal of annexure 13 which is the impugned order, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected mainly on three grounds, firstly that the eldest son of the deceased employee is a practicing advocate in court, secondly that the financial condition of the widow does not warrant appointment on compassionate ground and, thirdly that the respondent-Institute has no vacancy in group ‘C’ and, therefore, no appointment could be made in absence of any available vacancy. 9. The third ground upon which the petitioners’ claim has been rejected is that there is no existing vacancy in group C. the plea taken by the respondents is falsified by the fact that the respondents have advertised vacancies of two posts of group C in the daily newspaper. A copy of the paper cutting has been filed and annexed as annexure 14 to the supplementary affidavit. The facts stated by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. I am conscious of the legal position as settled by the Apex Court that no application for compassionate appointment can be entertained in the absence of any existing vacancy or when there is a ban on fresh recruitment. But, in the instant case, as noticed above, there is vacancy available in the respondents- Institute for which posts have been advertised. In such circumstances the rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the ground of non-availability of vacancy, cannot be said to be bonafide. Besides the above, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the same ground without any fresh inquiry or without any fresh notice, is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. It has been categorically stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that the eldest son of the deceased is not even a law graduate and there is no question of his practicing as an advocate, rather, he is also sitting idle and living separately with his wife. 11. It has been categorically stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that the eldest son of the deceased is not even a law graduate and there is no question of his practicing as an advocate, rather, he is also sitting idle and living separately with his wife. 11. For the reasons stated above, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the concerned respondent as contained in annexure 13 to the writ application is hereby quashed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to forthwith provide employment to the son of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground because he fulfills the requirements of the rules. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the father of petitioner no.1 had died in harness on 07.11.2000 and at that time his eldest son was already in service in CRPF, whereas the other son namely petitioner no.1 having born on 07.02.1987 was a minor at the time of death of his father. In the said circumstances, he was not fit to be appointed until 2005 when he was to attain 18 years of age. 6. The question of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to the family who was shocked due to death of the bread earner and that urgency cannot be expected to linger till 5 years thereafter and any undertaking to that effect given by the authorities would not help the petitioners as such appointments are only meant for special and emergent cases and cannot be treated as an alternative mode of appointment. 7. So far the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Smt. Nazma Bano and anr (supra) is concerned, the claim of the petitioners of that case was rejected mainly on three grounds, namely that the eldest son of the deceased employee was a practicing advocate in court and that the financial condition of the widow did not warrant appointment on compassionate ground and that the respondent-Institute had no vacancy in Group-C and therefore no appointment can be made in absence of any available vacancy. Furthermore, in the said decision, the Court specifically found that the eldest son of the deceased was not even a law graduate and there was no question of his practicing as an advocate. The other two grounds in the said orders are not existent in the instant case. Here it is an admitted case that the eldest son of the deceased employee is in service of the C.R.P.F., hence the facts and grounds are completely different in the instant case. 8. So far the separation of the petitioners with eldest son of the deceased is concerned, no doubt statement has been made by the petitioners in paragraph 7 of this writ petition, but there is no material at all to substantiate the said claim and hence merely on the basis of a bald statement, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. ?