Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1414 (GAU)

RAMANI TALUKDAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-11-16

MANOJIT BHUYAN, T.VAIPHEI

body2015
JUDGMENT : T.Vaiphei, J. Heard Mr. S. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SP Choudhury, the learned CGC. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch dismissing his application for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 15.07.1995 when he was working as Head Mechanic under the Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region leaving behind him four dependants including the petitioner. At the time of the death of the deceased, the petitioner was a minor who became major only five years later. In the meantime, his mother had filed an application for compassionate appointment but the same was apparently not entertained. The petitioner after attaining the majority in the year 2003 filed an application but the same was closed. Ultimately, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, which resulted in the impugned order. We have gone through the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal, especially those in paragraphs No. 6 and 7, which are reproduced hereunder: “6. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The aim and object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness to meet out certain exigencies in which deceased employee’s family is left unattended because of sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Apex Court has held as follows: “Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over”. In (2006) 5 SCC 766 , State of J & K and Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. In (2006) 5 SCC 766 , State of J & K and Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and livelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 7. In the present case, the applicant’s father was an employee under Geological Survey of India who died in harness on 15.07.1995 and the present O.A. was filed on 28.07.2015. Admittedly, on the date of filing of the O.A. more than a decade had passed and the family has survived somehow. Therefore, in view of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Apex Court, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. From the recor4d, it is also noted that he Administrative Officer for Director-in-Charge, GSI, NER, Shillong vide letter dated 24.10.2003 intimated the mother of the applicant here as under: “Your application for Compassionate appointment has been considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee but due to non-availability of clear vacancy within the prescribed quota, it is not possible to offer any appointment. Hence, the case has been further reviewed and is being treated as finally closed in term of Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 14014/19/2002/Estt(D), dated 05.05.2003.” 3. With due respect, we have no reason to disagree with the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Hence, the case has been further reviewed and is being treated as finally closed in term of Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 14014/19/2002/Estt(D), dated 05.05.2003.” 3. With due respect, we have no reason to disagree with the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). To give appointment to the petitioner after the lapse of 20 years will defeat the very object of the compassionate appointment, which is to tide over the immediate hardship caused to the family members of the deceased in the aftermath of his sudden death. Having survived for the last 20 years, it is not possible to assume at this belated stage that the petitioner and family members of the deceased are living in penury. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain such an application at this stage. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Member of the CAT. Rsultantly, this writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.