Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 763 (GAU)

Mithun Deb v. Union of India

2012-06-19

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Baruah, learned CGC. The petitioner is the son of Late Mohit Ranjan Deb who died in harness on 05.03.2004 while was in service as UDA under the respondents. Claiming compassionate appointment, the petitioner made a representation and the same was attended by the respondents by making further correspondences which are dated 29.03.2004, 16.04.2004, 12.05.2004, 11.09.2004, 07.10.2004 and 06.04.2005. By the said communications the petitioner and his mother were directed to submit applications in the prescribed form and was also asked to submit certain certificates regarding landed property. 2. The case of the petitioner came to be rejected and the same was communicated by Annexures-9, 10 and 11 communications dated 04.05.2005, 27.06.2005 and 15.07.2005. By Annexure-9 communication dated 04.05.2005, the petitioner was intimated that the Board of Officers in consideration of the financial status, pecuniary condition and essential need of the family of the deceased employee, could not recommend the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However, the petitioner was advised to apply under "son case category" for any suitable post as and when the vacancies would arise. By the said communication, the petitioner was also intimated about restriction of 5% vacancies for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was also informed that on the evaluation of the relative merit points of various applications worked out by the Board of Officers, the case of the petitioner could not be recommended. The petitioner was once again advised to apply in "son case category". Similar decision was also conveyed by the 3rd communication dated 15.05.2005. 3. Placing reliance on Annexure-12 Office memorandum dated 09.10.1998 laying down the scheme for compassionate appointment, Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents in its true perspective and that his case was rejected on untenable grounds. Placing reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.) and (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.), Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority could not have rejected the case of the petitioner taking into account the family pension. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.) and (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.), Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority could not have rejected the case of the petitioner taking into account the family pension. He submits that whatever benefits the family has derived on account of death of the sole breadwinner, the said benefit cannot take away consideration for compassionate appointment. 4. Countering the above argument, Mr. N. Baruah, learned CGC, submits that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Referring to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit, he submits that the case of the petitioner having been considered in the touchtone of the parameters and yardsticks laid down in the scheme of compassionate appointment, the inability to recommend the case of the petitioner cannot be called in question. 5. In Balbir Kaur (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with compassionate appointment and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the family benefits scheme that was introduced on a later point of time could not have been regarded as a substitute for compassionate appointment. In Govind Prakash Verma (supra), the Apex Court held that the scheme for compassionate appointment is always over and above whatever is admissible to legal representatives of deceased employee as benefits of service which they get on death of the employee. In that case, the case of the petitioner was rejected taking into consideration the amount that was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the rules. Direction was issued for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner leaving aside those benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned decision towards rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment being based on the amounts that have been received by the family in respect of the service of the deceased employee, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh leaving aside those benefits. 7. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 7. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1073 , the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901). 8. In both the decisions referred to above, the case of the person concerned for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that the particular family benefit scheme assuring a monthly payment to family of the deceased employee was introduced and that since the family was in receipt of the family pension, there was no need to provide with compassionate appointment. Unlike the said two cases, in the instant case, the case of the petitioner was considered by assessing the relative merit position of various applications considering the financial status, pecuniary condition and essential need of the family of the deceased employee. As disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was placed before the Board of Officers in the month of September, 2004 alongwith other cases for consideration in accordance with the policy decision of compassionate appointment. In the process adopted by the Board of Officers, the petitioner could secure 36 points in the in the scale of 100 points, whereas, who were offered appointment on compassionate ground secured higher points and the last one of them secured 46 points. 9. As disclosed in the counter affidavit, the case of the petitioner was considered applying the yardsticks and parameters applicable in the matter of compassionate appointment and in the process, the parameters such as family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of the family members and income from property, movable/immovable property, number of dependents, number of unmarried daughters etc. were taken into account and thereafter making comparative balance and objective assessment of the deserving candidates, the recommendation was made. 10. Unlike the above two cases, in the instant case, the case of the petitioner has not been rejected solely on the ground that an amount has been received by the family as family pension. were taken into account and thereafter making comparative balance and objective assessment of the deserving candidates, the recommendation was made. 10. Unlike the above two cases, in the instant case, the case of the petitioner has not been rejected solely on the ground that an amount has been received by the family as family pension. In terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment, the Board of Officers made comparative assessment taking into account all the relevant factors and accordingly on the basis of 100 points scale, could award 36 points to the petitioner as against 46 point awarded to the last appointee. 11. Needless to say that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. Needless also to say that there cannot be any endless compassion. Considering the sequence of events, it cannot be said that the respondents denied the lawful consideration of the case of the petitioner, various correspondences had been made by the department with the petitioner and his mother which shows that there was meaningful consideration of the case of the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, no direction can be issued to reconsider the case of the petitioner. However, I hasten to add that since the respondents themselves have advised the petitioner to apply under "son case category" for any suitable post as and when vacancies would arise, the petitioner may offer his candidature in future for candidature against the said category. Writ petition is disposed of. Disposed off.