Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 751 (RAJ)

Mohammed Nasir v. Union of India

2021-04-01

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANGEET LODHA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench ('the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.6.13 issued by the Assistant Postmaster General (S&V), Department of Posts, Government of India, intimating the rejection of application preferred by the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate ground, stands dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Mr. Mohammed Akhtar working as Mailman in the Department of Posts died while in service on 20.7.2000. The brother of the petitioner Mr. Mohammed Aslam submitted an application in prescribed proforma seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected vide order dated 1.3.2001 as his case was not found suitable for appointment on compassionate ground under the Scheme. The legality of the order was not questioned by Mohammed Aslam by availing the appropriate remedy available under the law and the same attained finality. After a lapse of about 9 years, in the year 2010, an application was made by the petitioner's mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground for his second son, the petitioner herein, which stood rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 26.6.2013, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended cases. The representation of the petitioner for reconsideration of the decision stood rejected vide communication dated 14.10.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 3. The original application has been dismissed by the Tribunal observing that there is no provision in the Scheme of the Compassionate Appointment, under which if case of one dependent is rejected, another can be considered. The Tribunal observed that the family never challenged the order dated 1.3.2001, whereby application of elder son was rejected and thus, after a lapse of 9 years, another member of the family cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal also noticed that the application has been rejected also on the ground that the petitioner is not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended ones. 4. The Tribunal also noticed that the application has been rejected also on the ground that the petitioner is not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended ones. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that under the Scheme, the application of any dependent cannot be rejected on the ground that the application earlier filed by one of the dependent of the deceased Government employee, has already been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the applications made by the petitioner and his brother have not been considered by the respondents objectively on merits and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the very object of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. It is to be noticed that the death of the government employee by itself does not transform into eligibility to claim appointment on compassionate ground. As per the Scheme framed, a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness acquires the eligibility for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, if the following twin conditions are satisfied: (1) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (2) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. 7. Indisputably, in the first instance, the petitioner's brother had claimed appointment on compassionate ground, which stood rejected vide order dated 1.3.2001 observing that the financial condition of the family does not appear to be indigent requiring immediate relief. It is also not in dispute that the legality of the said order was not questioned by the petitioner's brother by taking appropriate remedy available under the law and the same has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the issue with regard to the entitlement of the dependent of the deceased Government servant, the father of the petitioner herein, stood concluded and none of the dependent family members could have maintained yet another application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of 10 years since the death of Government servant. 8. In this view of the matter, the issue with regard to the entitlement of the dependent of the deceased Government servant, the father of the petitioner herein, stood concluded and none of the dependent family members could have maintained yet another application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of 10 years since the death of Government servant. 8. That apart, the Scheme framed does not provide for offer of appointment on compassionate ground to dependent of each and every deceased employee and no case is considered individually rather, all the cases received from various offices are considered by the Committee constituted to find out the most deserving cases in acute financial distress/more indigent in comparison to other similar cases. Thus, decision of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner on account of his not being found indigent, cannot be faulted with. 9. Undoubtedly, the Scheme regulating the appointment on compassionate ground is framed by the Government so as to extend immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased employee who has died in harness. But then, the appointment on compassionate ground, an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment Rules governing the public employment, to meet the particular contingency, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Rani Devi, [ 1996 (5) SCC 308 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premise that he was dependent on deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of certain crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service." 11. In the matter of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana", [ 1994(4) SCC 138 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible members of the family." The Hon'ble Court further observed that "the 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." 12. The petitioner's father had expired in the year 2000. The family of the deceased Government servant has survived for about 20 years without the employment being offered by the respondents on compassionate ground. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the crisis period is over, even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not have been entertained by the respondents. 13. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As noticed above, in the instant case, after rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner's brother, the petitioner had preferred an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after a lapse of about 9 years, which stood rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 4.6.2015. Assailing the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of about 6 years. Thus, the present writ petition filed badly suffers from delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 14. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition lacks merits, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.