Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1522 (RAJ)

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Raj Kumar

2015-08-13

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
M.R. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Bhavit Sharma, for Respondent Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, an Assistant Engineer working with Rajasthan State Electricity Board, died while in service on 17.7.1999. Shri Raj Kumar, the respondent petitioner, claiming himself as an adopted son of Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit submitted an application to have appointment as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds. 2. As per the respondent petitioner his claim for appointment was rejected under an office order/letter dated 4.9.2004 with reason that Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit at the time of his death was unmarried and validity of adoption of the respondent petitioner as son could have been settled only by a competent civil court. It was also stated that till such adjudication no appointment on compassionate grounds could have been given. In the year 2006 the respondent petitioner filed a civil suit before the court of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur to have a decree to declare him an adopted son of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit and in the suit aforesaid the present appellant was arrayed as defendant No.6. By judgment dated 1.12.2009 the civil court decreed the suit with a declaration that the plaintiff is an adopted son of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, however, the issue as to whether the present appellant was party necessary to the writ proceedings was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the present appellant. The civil court held that the respondent No.6 is not a party necessary to the suit proceedings and was unnecessarily arrayed as defendant. After obtaining the decree the respondent petitioner again approached the appellant respondent for his appointment on compassionate grounds being a dependent to Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, however, since the same was not offered, he preferred a petition for writ that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. Learned Writ Court while accepting the petition for writ, held and directed as under:- “It is not in dispute that the petitioner is adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. It is also not in dispute that late Rupesh Chandra Purohit was working on the post of Assistant Engineer under the control of the respondents. Learned Writ Court while accepting the petition for writ, held and directed as under:- “It is not in dispute that the petitioner is adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. It is also not in dispute that late Rupesh Chandra Purohit was working on the post of Assistant Engineer under the control of the respondents. The denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is that on the day on which the petitioner was adopted he was 30 years of age and as per Section 10 of the Act of 1956 no person can be adopted who is more than 15 years of age as on the date of adoption. But, in the case, when the respondents refused to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, then, the petitioner preferred a suit before the civil Court and said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.104/2006 and the same was finally decided by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur on 01.12.2009, in which, the petitioner is declared legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur (Annex.5), in which, the trial Court observed while deciding issue No.3 that the petitioner was adopted as per Hindu custom and the customs of the Pushkarna society in the year 1983 and, at that time, the age of the petitioner was only 12 – 13 years; meaning thereby, the civil decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner after due examination of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for providing appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this Court there is no jurisdiction left with the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground because upon the objection raised by the respondents the petitioner sought declaration from the civil Court and vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009 the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur declared that the petitioner is legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit.” ..... ..... “In view of above, I see no reason to deny the right of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner being adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit who died while in service on 17.07.1999 in accordance with the rules. ..... “In view of above, I see no reason to deny the right of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner being adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit who died while in service on 17.07.1999 in accordance with the rules. It is made clear that the petitioner was within age limit for appointment when he moved the application in 1999. Therefore, at the time of considering the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground the question of upper age limit will not come in way because the petitioner was illegally denied appointment when he was within age limit.” 3. In appeal, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the directions given by learned Single Bench are not in consonance with the objects for extending an appointment on compassionate grounds. It is brought to the knowledge of the Court that in the year 1999 at the time of death of Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, age of the respondent petitioner was more than 30 years. Though he submitted an application for appointment in the year 1999, the same was rejected in 2004, he approached the civil court in 2006 after a delay of two years to obtain a decree to declare him as an adopted son of Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, and presently his age is more than 46 years. He has settled himself in life and the shock, if any caused to him, being dependent of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, has already been mitigated by flux of time. The argument advanced is substantiated by placing reliance upon a landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , holding therein that consideration for employment on a compassionate ground is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object for awarding such appointments is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis, which it faces at the time of death of sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after the crisis is over. 4. The object for awarding such appointments is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis, which it faces at the time of death of sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after the crisis is over. 4. On the other hand, while defending the judgment impugned, Shri M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, submits that conduct of the appellants in the instant matter is highly deplorable and whatever delay caused in the matter is only due to stubborn attitude of the employer. As per Shri Singhvi the respondent petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds well within the limitation prescribed under the relevant rules, but no action was taken by the appellants employer uptil 4.9.2004. The respondent petitioner in the meantime submitted several representations to the competent authorities including the Chief Minister of the State to act upon the application submitted by him. It is urged that under the communication dated 4.9.2004 the appellants employer communicated to the respondent petitioner that his claim for appointment cannot be considered till having a declaration by a competent civil court that he is an adopted son of Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit and the respondent petitioner relying upon the contents of the letter dated 4.9.2004 approached the civil court to have a declaratory decree which was ultimately granted to him on 1.12.2009. Immediately after having such decree he approached the appellants employer but of no consequence. By relying upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Rajeshwar Nath vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1980 WLN 529, it is asserted that for the negligence or any inaction or indifference on the part of the appellant respondent, appointment cannot be denied to the respondent petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of respective parties and considered the rival submissions. 6. The appointments on compassionate grounds with the appellant company are governed by the Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 2001. As per the Rules aforesaid an adopted son comes within the purview of 'dependent' of a deceased government servant. After having a decree for declaration from a competent civil court it is not in dispute that the respondent petitioner is a dependent of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit. 7. As per the Rules aforesaid an adopted son comes within the purview of 'dependent' of a deceased government servant. After having a decree for declaration from a competent civil court it is not in dispute that the respondent petitioner is a dependent of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit. 7. Precisely, the issue before this Court is that whether the writ issued by learned Single Bench for appointment of the respondent petitioner on compassionate grounds after a lapse of about 15 years from the date of death of the deceased government servant is justified? 8. It is well settled that the object of the provision for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds is to extend helping hand to the members of the dependent family of a government servant dying in harness to relieve them from financial destitution and to get over the emergent saddened situation. The appointments on compassionate grounds are exception to the concept of equality to satisfy a class of persons that suffers economic and emotional shock due to loss of the person maintaining their life by providing them bread, shelter, studies, status etc. It is a deviation from regular mode of appointment just to meet the emergent circumstances referred above. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) such employment is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in future. No one should harbor or nurture an idea that he had vested right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. It is always subject to rules or policies in vogue, as the case may be, and further the fundamental object that is to meet the emergent shock received by a family loosing its sole breadwinner. 9. In the case in hand, Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit died on 17.7.1999, an application then was submitted by the respondent petitioner to have appointment on compassionate grounds, but that was rejected on 4.9.2004, after having a negative decision on the grounds mentioned in the letter dated 4.9.2004, the respondent petitioner approached the civil court in the year 2006 to have a declaratory decree. No reason is given as to why he was waiting for about two years for filing a civil suit. The suit was decreed in the year 2009 and then again he approached to the appellants for having appointment on compassionate grounds. No reason is given as to why he was waiting for about two years for filing a civil suit. The suit was decreed in the year 2009 and then again he approached to the appellants for having appointment on compassionate grounds. We are of considered opinion that the emergent circumstances existing in the year 1999 must have been mitigated during the period aforesaid. As a matter of fact the circumstances existing must have mitigated even in the year 2004. It is pertinent to notice that even at the time of claiming appointment the age of the respondent petitioner was more than 30 years and now he is about 46 years. At this stage the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds shall be nothing but a culpable misuse of the rules meant for extending pious help to a person in need. The Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Nath (supra) is also of no help to the respondent petitioner as that was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. As a matter of fact the judgment aforesaid is having no precedent value except for the law laid down in para 5 of the judgment pertaining to the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. For the reasons given above, we are inclined to accept this appeal, accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 28.5.2013 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent petitioner is dismissed.