Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2665 (ALL)

Shravan Kumar v. Union of India

2014-08-29

BACHCHOO LAL, RAKESH TIWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari and Bachchoo Lal, JJ. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Against rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment, petitioner-Shravan Kumar has filed this petition with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 11.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 as well as the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal appended as Annexure No. 9 and 11 respectively to the writ petition. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post. 2. It is stated that father of the petitioner-late Shiv Shanker died in harness on 19.7.2003 while working as Gangman in North Central Railway. 3. According to the Counsel for petitioner, the petitioner being dependant of late Shiv Shanker is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dependants of Govt. Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974; that family of the deceased employee is at the verge of starvation due to inaction on the part of respondents and that the petitioner and his mother had been compelled by the respondents to approach the Tribunal which directed them to consider their claim for compassionate appointment which has illegally and arbitrarily been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.11.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 77 of 2009, which too has been dismissed and hence this petition. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that deceased employee after the death of his first wife from whom he had a son-Rakesh Kumar, had remarried Phoolgena-the mother of the present petitioner-Shravan Kumar. The petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father, hence a dispute arose in the family between Rakesh Kumar aforesaid and mother of the petitioner. Both of them approached Central Administrative Tribunal separately claiming appointment on compassionate ground and the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider their claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order, pursuant to which the order impugned has been passed by the department rejecting the petitioner's claim. 5. The order impugned further reveals that railway department had offered compassionate appointment on the post of Khalasi (Telecom) to the petitioner's mother-Smt. Phoalgena which she refused and that monthly payment of  Rs. 1720/- plus D.A. is regularly being made to her towards family pension. 5. The order impugned further reveals that railway department had offered compassionate appointment on the post of Khalasi (Telecom) to the petitioner's mother-Smt. Phoalgena which she refused and that monthly payment of  Rs. 1720/- plus D.A. is regularly being made to her towards family pension. The department, therefore, relying upon the landmark decision of the Apex Court rendered in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 SCC 138 has rejected the petitioner's representation praying for appointment on compassionate ground vide impugned order dated 11.11.2008. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the department, the petitioner again preferred O.A. No. 77 of 2009 before the Tribunal. After hearing the parties and considering case laws relied upon before it, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.2011, has rejected the petitioner's application by assigning cogent reasons. 7. This fact is not in dispute that present petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and his mother had refused the appointment offered to her by the department, probably for the reason she wanted her son (petitioner) to be appointed after he attained majority. Had the family been under indigent circumstances or financial crisis requiring immediate assistance to tide over it, the appointment so offered to the petitioner's mother would not have been refused by her. It is also on record that family pension is being regularly paid to the petitioner's mother and other benefits to which the deceased employee was entitled to, have already been paid. 8. In a recent pronouncement in Local Administration Department and another v. M. Sehanayagam alias Kumaravelu AIR 2011 SC 1880 , the Apex Court while reiterating its earlier view, has ruled that compassionate appointment is offered with the sole object to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial sources available to his dependent and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, hence had and illegal. In dealing with cases of such appointment, it is imperative to keep these vital aspects in mind. 9. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid and keeping in view the law on the point as settled by the Apex Court, the orders impugned cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. In our view, the orders impugned are apparently in consonance with the settled legal position and require no interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. For all the reasons stated above, the present petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.