Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1657 (RAJ)

Om Giri Goswami v. A. V. V. N. Ltd.

2013-09-18

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing communication dated 06.01.2011 with further prayer for direction to treat the petitioner within age for providing appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner was within age limit on the date of submission of application by his mother on 23.01.2008. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of the policy and rules of the respondents keeping in view the qualification possessed by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father late Veni Giri Goswami died on 31.10.2007 while in service on the post of CCA-III in the respondent Department. The petitioner's mother submitted an application on 23.01.2008 in which it is requested by her that her son may be provided appointment on compassionate ground because her husband died while in service. The application of the petitioner's mother was received in the respondent Department on 23.01.2008 which is not in dispute. 3. The respondents sent letter to the petitioner's mother in which she was asked to submit all documents so as to take appropriate action for providing appointment on compassionate ground. As per contention of the petitioner, all the documents were submitted before the authority in pursuance of the communication dated 18.03.2008. Thereafter vide communication dated 27.05.2009, the respondents further asked the petitioner's mother to submit affidavit so that action may be taken for providing appointment. 4. The petitioner submitted affidavit as required vide Annex.6 dated 17.12.2009. The case of the petitioner was sent to the Deputy Director (Personnel), AV.V.N. Ltd., Udaipur for providing appointment by the Executive Engineer (O & M), A.V.V.N. Ltd., Amet (District Rajsamand); but, unfortunately again a communication was sent for sending original documents. The petitioner submitted the relevant original documents also but finally the respondents denied appointment vide communication dated 06.01.2011 on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.12.1975 and the day on which the petitioner's affidavit was verified i.e., 05.11.2009, he became 33 years and 11 months of age, therefore, he has crossed the age limit prescribed for the post after granting age relaxation upto 33 years. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 06.01.2011. 6. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 06.01.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground of crossing the age limit is totally unfounded because the petitioner's father died on 31.10.2007 and the first application for providing appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the petitioner's mother on 23.01.2008, therefore, that date was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the age of the petitioner and, on that date, the petitioner was well within age limit for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide financial relief to the family of the deceased employee who died while in service, therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to take shelter of uncalled for technicalities to deny appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground as per his qualification. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that delay has been caused due to inaction on the part of the petitioner himself because he did not furnish proper application in accordance with rules within time and, the day on which his affidavit was sworn, he crossed the age limit prescribed for providing appointment on compassionate ground. As per the respondents' counsel, the maximum age limit for appointment in respondent Nigam is 28 years and there is 5 years' age relaxation provided for candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground; meaning thereby maximum age limit is 33 years for providing appointment on compassionate ground; but, the petitioner filed proper application after crossing the age limit which is evident from the fact that affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the application was verified on 05.11.2009, therefore, the denial of appointment is justified and petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought for in this writ petition. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from the record that the petitioner's father died on 31.10.2007 while working as CCA-III and it is not in dispute that the petitioner's mother submitted application on 31.01.2008 with the request to provide appointment to her son on compassionate ground. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from the record that the petitioner's father died on 31.10.2007 while working as CCA-III and it is not in dispute that the petitioner's mother submitted application on 31.01.2008 with the request to provide appointment to her son on compassionate ground. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. The denial of appointment is that when the proper application was filed by the petitioner he crossed the age limit prescribed for the post which is evident from the affidavit filed by him. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to give financial relief to the family of the deceased employee who died while in service. The purpose is not to crush the family but the purpose of enactment of the relevant legislation is for providing appointment to dependent of the deceased as relief for the loss of the bread earner of the family. Therefore, at the time of consideration it is the duty of the employer not to take shelter to petty technicalities to deny appointment to the ward of the deceased employee. 11. Here, in this case, the day on which the petitioner's father died which is 31.10.2007, the petitioner was within age limit because his date of birth is 06.12.1975. Therefore, the said date was to be taken into consideration for providing appointment and assessing the age of the claimant. Further, if that date is not taken into account, then, obviously when the petitioner's mother filed her application for providing appointment on compassionate ground to her son is to be taken into consideration; but, for denial of appointment, the respondent arbitrarily considered the age of the petitioner as on the date the demanded affidavit was verified. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is case in which appointment has been denied by the respondents on totally unjustified grounds and without taken proper decision upon the application filed by the petitioner. It is true that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right; but, at the same time, when the Department is to act for he welfare of the family, then, they should not take shelter of petty technicalities to deny appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee. It is true that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right; but, at the same time, when the Department is to act for he welfare of the family, then, they should not take shelter of petty technicalities to deny appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee. The authorities are required to take sympathetic decision for the welfare of the family of the deceased employee. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.01.2011 is quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of this order while treating the petitioner within age limit for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 14. There shall however be no order as to costs.