Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1401 (HP)

Vinod Kumar v. Union of India

2015-10-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The writ petition was de-linked from the group of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No.9094 of 2013, and was taken up separately. 2. By the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P-6 made by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, and has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner, who was serving as Sepoy General Duty, suffered injuries while on duty and ultimately died on 21.3.1990 at AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner, on attaining the age of majority and after completing 10+2 in the year 2011, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, he was called for undergoing physical, medical and written tests, which the petitioner, as pleaded, had qualified. However, vide letter dated 22.10.2013, it was conveyed to the petitioner that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner since his father was serving as GD. Thereafter, again the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk and he was called for test, which he qualified. However, this time also appointment was declined to the petitioner on the ground of instructions issued vide Annexure P-4, wherein it is provided that a married man cannot be appointed. Again the petitioner represented vide representation, dated 10.9.2014, (Annexure P-5), however, vide communication Annexure P-6, the petitioner was intimated that since he got married, his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Hence the petitioner sought quashment of Annexure P-6. 4. It was contended that the said rejection order Annexure P-6 is illegal for the reason that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor and after attaining the age of majority, he got married and solemnizing of marriage is not a handicap for getting employment. 5. Respondents have filed the joint reply, in which, in paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions, the respondents have pleaded that as per the policy in force at the relevant point of time, a married son of a deceased-employee cannot be considered as dependant. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions, hereunder: “2. Respondents have filed the joint reply, in which, in paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions, the respondents have pleaded that as per the policy in force at the relevant point of time, a married son of a deceased-employee cannot be considered as dependant. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions, hereunder: “2. ……………………As per para 11 of Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D), dated 30th May 2013, dependant family members means; a) Spouse; or b) Son (including adopted son); or c) Daughter (including adopted daughter); or d) Brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government Servant; or e) Member of the Armed Force, as defined in Sl.No.3, who was wholly dependant on the Government servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be. However, as per para 3 of Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 30th May, 2013, a married son of a deceased government employee cannot be considered as dependant. In the instant case the petitioner got married on 12/10/2011 and he cannot be considered as dependant, hence the case of the petitioner for appointment in CRPF on compassionate grounds was rejected.” 6. It is well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is to be granted only as per the Scheme/Policy/Regulations occupying the field and no appointment can be made de hors the Rules or the Scheme/Policy. It is also well settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, which has been carved out with an aim to provide immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. 7. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 8. It is also worthwhile to mention that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, CRPF, Lucknow (UP) and all the respondents arrayed in the writ petition are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh and the cause of action has also not arisen within the State of Himachal Pradesh. 9. 9. Having said so, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is dismissed, along with pending CMPs, if any.