Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1165 (RAJ)

Virendra Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

2014-05-19

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.06.2012 (Annex. 3) and further prayed that the respondent department may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground forthwith. The petitioner's father viz.; Bhanwar Singh was working as Telecom Mechanic in the respondent department at Jaisalmer and after serving for about 18 years, during the course of service he died while in service in the year 2007. The petitioner being son of late Bhanwar Singh filed an application to provide appointment on compassionate ground on 12.05.2008. In the application, it was specifically mentioned that late Bhanwar Singh left behind three children and wife and there is no other earning member in the family, therefore, appointment may be given on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was rejected by Recommendatory Committee and Communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.06.2012 on the ground that the family of the deceased employee is getting Rs. 3250/- as against family pension and also retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 2,46,979/- have already been paid to the family, therefore, it is not a fit case in which appointment on compassionate ground can be given as per the policy of the State Government. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons for denial of appointment are totally contrary to law because whatever payment is made, is in lieu of services rendered by late Bhanwar Singh and the deductions made from his salary, therefore, the reasons incorporated in the order of rejection of application for appointment on compassionate ground are totally unfounded. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the policy, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground because there is no earning member in the family and as per the policy, the appointment can be given to the family even in cases where earning member is there. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the policy, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground because there is no earning member in the family and as per the policy, the appointment can be given to the family even in cases where earning member is there. While inviting attention towards the fact that late Bhanwar Singh left behind three children, out of whom, one is daughter and two, including the petitioner, are pursuing their studies and their mother Sajjan Kanwar is house wife and, therefore, it is not possible for the family to survive without any earning member, therefore, the respondent department is under obligation to consider all aspects of the matter objectively but while observing certain benefits, which are given to the family of the deceased employee, the claim of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, which is totally unconstitutional action of the respondents. 3. In view of the above, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the policy framed by the Government. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner was considered strictly in accordance with the policy by the Circle High Power Committee of the respondent BSNL Office but in those cases in which as per the check list for the weightage point system, an applicant gets 55 net points, has been treated eligible for appointment by the Corporate Office High Power Committee for appointment on compassionate ground. But in case of petitioner, the matter was examined by the High Power Committee but it did not agree to offer appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, it is a case in which the petitioner does not fall within the category of providing appointment on compassionate ground as per the policy, therefore, the writ petitioner may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the policy under which the applicant is to be considered for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the policy under which the applicant is to be considered for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Under the policy, the following provision is incorporated even for those cases in which earning member is there, which reads as under: "Where There Is An Earning Member (a) In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member in the family a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department Ministry concerned who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the Government servant, income member as also his liabilities including the fact member is residing with the family of the Government servant whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family. (b) In cases where any member of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is already in employment and is not supporting the other members of the family of the Government servant, extreme caution has to be observed in ascertaining the economic distress of the members of the family of the Government servant so that the facility of appointment on compassionate ground is not circumvented and misused by putting forward the ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family." 6. I have examined the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid policy so also the order of rejection of the petitioner's candidature. Admittedly, late Bhanwar Singh left behind two sons and a daughter and wife and after his death, none of the family members is in service. Therefore obviously to give financial assistance to the family of late Bhanwar Singh, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered objectively and sympathetically but on perusal of the communication dated 06.06.2012, it is revealed that in a very casual manner only on the basis of dues of late Bhanwar Singh paid to the family of deceased employee and pension amount, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons incorporated in the communication dated 06.06.2012 are not in consonance with the law and policy under which the compassionate appointment is to be given. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons incorporated in the communication dated 06.06.2012 are not in consonance with the law and policy under which the compassionate appointment is to be given. The benefits, which are given arising out of the services rendered by late Bhanwar Singh, cannot be termed as benefits granted by the department on compassionate ground because those benefits are attached to the services rendered by the employee, who died while in service. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the communication dated 06.06.2012 is hereby quashed with direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground while taking into consideration the fact that there is no earning member in the family of deceased employee and also keep in view the future prospects of late Bhanwar Singh from which the family of late Bhanwar Singh has been deprived. It is expected from the respondents that the appropriate decision will be taken to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Petition Allowed. *******