Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1056 (ALL)

Archana Singh v. Union of India

2024-04-15

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 13.12.2022 issued by the Assistant General Manager (EBD), HR Department, Union Bank of India, Mumbai, communicating the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on account of her father's death in harness. Also under challenge is an order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Committee for Compassionate Appointments of the Bank, by which the petitioner's claim has been rejected. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, shorn of unnecessary detail, are these: Ram Prasad Singh was a Clerk, employed with the Union Bank of India, posted at the Gorakhpur Branch. He died in harness on 5th of November, 2021. He was appointed in the year 1990 and at the time of his demise was aged 53 years. The petitioner's father left behind him, his widow Smt. Sangeeta Singh, Km. Archana Singh, the petitioner, his daughter and two married daughters, to wit, Aparna Singh and Sweta Singh. At the time of her father's demise, the petitioner and her mother were dependent upon him. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was a graduate, who had earned her degree from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and eligible for appointment on compassionate basis. She made an application to the Bank on 29th August, 2022, seeking for herself a consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The two elder sisters of the petitioner have given their 'no objection' to a consideration of the petitioner's candidature. The petitioner belongs to the OBC Category and applied to the Bank, as already said, alongwith necessary certificates, including an income certificate issued by the competent Authority and a letter of undertaking/self-declaration, as required by the Bank's guidelines in this behalf. There are other details, which the petitioner has pleaded, but those we do not think are necessary to mention. Suffice it to say that by a communication dated 13.12.2022 issued by the Assistant General Manager (EBD), Central Officer, Mumbai, the petitioner was informed that her case was placed before the competent Authority and in terms of the Government of India guidelines, besides the scheme for compassionate appointment, her request for compassionate appointment had been considered favourably by the Bank in terms of the scheme, but rejected, as the family is not living in financial destitution, penury or without means of livelihood, justifying the appointment. 3. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission before this Court, we noticed that the order impugned is only a communication of the Committee's decision and not the decision itself. This was not appreciated by the Court and Mr. Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, was required to place through an affidavit, within a week, a copy of the order passed by the functionary, described as the competent Authority, rejecting the petitioner's claim. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to wit, the Bank, annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Committee for Compassionate Appointment, which is in the nature of a recommendation. It is a decision accompanied by all other relevant information that the Committee considered. The Committee comprised three members, which includes the Assistant General Manager (Law), another Assistant General Manager, besides the General Manager (Human Resource). The said affidavit being filed, the petitioner was granted time to file an amendment, challenging the Committee's decision dated 14.11.2022. In the meantime, a rejoinder-affidavit was filed on 28.8.2023. 5. An application for amendment was made on 18.9.2023, which was granted by this Court on 9.10.2023. The respondent Bank was granted opportunity to file a further counter-affidavit to the amended pleas. No such affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bank. On 16.10.2023, affidavits being exchanged, the writ petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved. 6. Heard Mr. Antriksh Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi, learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of the Union of India. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's father died in harness, leaving behind him, his wife, the petitioner's mother and the petitioner as his dependents. The petitioner has undertaken to take care of her mother, the deceased employee's widow. There is no objection from any other family member. The petitioner's case is eminently fit for the grant of compassionate appointment and the family are in dire need thereof, in order to keep themselves afloat. The petitioner has undertaken to take care of her mother, the deceased employee's widow. There is no objection from any other family member. The petitioner's case is eminently fit for the grant of compassionate appointment and the family are in dire need thereof, in order to keep themselves afloat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Dying in Harness Rules') has been refused by the Committee for Compassionate Appointment (for short, 'the Committee') on specious and irrelevant grounds. The money that the family have received on account of the petitioner's father's terminal benefits, is irrelevant and the fact that they have taken into consideration what the family have received in terminal benefits of the petitioner's father, vitiates the decision. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Court's attention to the following observations in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) : ''6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules......'' 8. The submission is that whatever terminal benefits have been paid on account of the untimely demise of the petitioner's father, have been paid to his widow. The petitioner herself is a young unmarried woman. She is 22 years of age and very much a dependent of her father's. She has not received any of those benefits, which rightfully belong to the deceased's widow, that is to say, the petitioner's mother. The petitioner herself is a young unmarried woman. She is 22 years of age and very much a dependent of her father's. She has not received any of those benefits, which rightfully belong to the deceased's widow, that is to say, the petitioner's mother. If the petitioner's mother supports the petitioner financially, it would an act of grace and compassion on her part. If she does not, the petitioner would indeed be reduced to penury. She has nothing of her own to bank upon after her father's demise. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank, submits that the criteria for eligibility under the scheme for compassionate appointment in force in the Bank is governed by the Staff Circular No. 6164 dated 19.1.2015. The eligibility criteria according to Clause 5 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment reads : ''Clause 5.-Eligibility: 5.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. To access the financial condition the income of the family from all sources including the family pension, terminal benefits, proceeds of insurance policies & other investments etc. and the employment of family members, size of the family & liabilities, if any will be taken into consideration. 5.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Recruitment Rules will mean the norms which are in force at the time of making the compassionate appointment.'' 10. Mr. Agrawal submits that the recommendations of the Committee declining the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment was approved by the competent Authority. The Committee have taken into consideration the entire circumstances of the family and arrived at a conclusion that the deceased's family could not be considered living in financial destitution, penury, or without any means of livelihood, so as to justify the grant of compassionate appointment. The decision has been taken strictly in accordance with the scheme in force and no irrelevant consideration has prevailed with the Committee in declining the petitioner's application. 11. Mr. The decision has been taken strictly in accordance with the scheme in force and no irrelevant consideration has prevailed with the Committee in declining the petitioner's application. 11. Mr. Agrawal submits that the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma may not of much assistance to the petitioner, as it has not been followed by their Lordships in later decisions, a position explained in State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 . Mr. Agrawal submits that testing the circumstances of the family with reference to whatever they have received in terminal benefits and the assessment of their monthly income, the petitioner is not by any means a surviving member of the deceased employee's family, where the family can be said to be in penury. The calculation done by the Committee on objective criteria shows the overall circumstances of the deceased employee's family, not at all those of indigency. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. 13. It is true that the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma has held terminal benefits received by the deceased's widow or family to be irrelevant for the purpose of considering their case for compassionate appointment. But, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the principles, that weighed with the Supreme Court, have been reconsidered over a period of time and a different view of the matter taken. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of their Lordships in Shashi Kumar (supra), where it is observed : ''15. The High Court while dealing with the first issue which it framed for decision, held that the State is not entitled to take into account family pension and other terminal benefits in determining whether compassionate appointment should be granted to the dependant of a deceased employee. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court has relied upon a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590 and on two subsequent decisions in A.P. SRTC v. Sarvarunnisa Begum, (2008) 3 SCC 402 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 769 : AIR 2008 SCW 1946 and in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539. Having held that the State is not entitled to consider the family pension and other terminal benefits received by the dependants of the deceased employee, the High Court has held that the income slab which was prescribed by the Finance Department did not constitute an amendment of the policy and that, consequently, it must be disregarded in deciding upon cases of compassionate appointment. 18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfil the terms of the policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18-1-1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of Government servants who have died while in service, ''leaving their families in indigent circumstances''. The policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a Government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a Government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognises in Para (10) that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Para (10)(c) of the policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family. 20. In view of the clear terms of the policy, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing a mandamus in the above terms from a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590]. That was a case of compassionate appointment where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned Single Judge had directed Life Insurance Corporation, which was the employer of the deceased employee, to make an enquiry and submit a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts towards terminal benefits. Reversing the view of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus : (Govind Prakash Verma case [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590], SCC p. 291, para 6) ''6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules.'' 21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract : (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) ''2. … As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 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 member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.'' 22. Specifically in the context of considering the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased employee, several judgments of this Court have elaborated on the principles to be followed. 24. The decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938 followed the same principle. While reiterating the view which was taken in Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943], this Court held that the scheme specified the amounts which were required to be taken into consideration. 26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077 has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.'' 14. Reference in this connection may also be made to the Full Bench decision of our Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 (FB). Reference in this connection may also be made to the Full Bench decision of our Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 (FB). In Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), their Lordships of the Full Bench have culled out the principles governing consideration of a case for compassionate appointment as follows : ''29. We now proceed to formulate the principles which must govern compassionate appointment in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules: (i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (ii) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; (iii) The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner; (iv) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family; its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment; (v) Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out; (vi) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily, an application for compassionate appointment must be made within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee. The power conferred by the first proviso is a discretion to relax the period in a case of undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner; (vii) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the Government; (viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family.'' 15. Now, here what is noticed is that the eligibility, that is postulated under Clause 5 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment carried in Staff Circular No. 6164 dated 19.1.2015, makes it imperative that the deceased's family is indigent, deserving immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, to borrow the words employed in the Scheme. The relevant factors are also spelt out by Clause 5.1 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment applicable to the Bank. It says that the financial condition of the family has to be judged taking into account income of the family from all sources, including family pension, terminal benefits, proceeds of insurance policy, besides other investments, including the employment profile of the other family members, the size of the family and their liabilities. 16. This Court may emphasize that compassionate appointment is a departure from the normal rule of employment in public service, and is a device to meet a contingency, where life for the family of a person in public employment, dependent upon him economically, takes an unexpected turn for the worse on account of his sudden demise. 16. This Court may emphasize that compassionate appointment is a departure from the normal rule of employment in public service, and is a device to meet a contingency, where life for the family of a person in public employment, dependent upon him economically, takes an unexpected turn for the worse on account of his sudden demise. The object of departure from the general principle of offering public employment in accordance with rules is to bail out a family, who have no other resources, except the deceased's income. It would then have to be assessed, almost doing a balance sheet of the assets, liabilities, potential of other family members and diverse circumstances, if the family of the deceased employee, on account of his premature and untimely exit from the mortal world, would indeed land in penurious circumstances. 17. Now, to assess if they would, the terminal benefits, that would enure to the family on account of the employee's demise, would be the most important factor. If there is a family pension, coming to the family, it would too be very relevant. The assets of the family, that are capable of providing them sustenance, are also relevant. On the liability side of this balance sheet would be those young members of the deceased's family, if any, who are still pursuing their studies and would require continued financial support to carry on their academic pursuit to a degree of acceptable graduation. Similarly, there could be liabilities for the deceased's family in the Indian social milieu, where a daughter's marriage is still considered a financial liability for the family. This too would then figure on the liabilities side to be considered. 18. In this case, what we find is that the deceased had two married daughters, who are presumably staying with their husbands. There is no case that they were dependent on the deceased. The petitioner also has completed her necessary graduation and is ready to offer herself for employment, trying her luck, like other citizens of the country. The Committee have carefully looked into the quantum of terminal benefits and doing a meticulous assessment, as would appear from the resolution of the Committee at Pages 59 to 63 of the paper-book, found that for the deceased's monthly salary of Rs.95,202/-, the family from all sources after his death, still have an income of Rs.66,567/-. The Committee have carefully looked into the quantum of terminal benefits and doing a meticulous assessment, as would appear from the resolution of the Committee at Pages 59 to 63 of the paper-book, found that for the deceased's monthly salary of Rs.95,202/-, the family from all sources after his death, still have an income of Rs.66,567/-. Of this, the widow is in receipt of a family pension of Rs.44,084/-. There are substantial lump sum payments received in terminal benefits and also fixed deposits. The only other thing, that was emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is not in receipt of those terminal benefits, but those are her mother's. She has no right to share these. Seen realistically, and also from the point of view of what the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment contemplates, the object of compassionate appointment is to alleviate the economic distress of the deceased's family. It is not just the widow, though the widow is the most important person to be taken care of after the demise of the employee. If a family member is given compassionate appointment, there is an undertaking that he/she would take care of the dependent family members. If compassionate appointment is not provided, on ground that the surviving family members, otherwise dependent on the deceased, are not left in penurious circumstances, it is assumed that the widow, or whoever has received the terminal benefits, would stay with the other dependents as a family. Notwithstanding the widow's importance in the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, what is relevant is the dependent family of the deceased. Therefore, if through the widow the family have received sufficient funds, by dint of which it cannot be said that the deceased's family, which is to be understood as the dependent members of the deceased, would be reduced to penury, compassionate appointment may not be granted. It would be a different matter if there is a specific case that the petitioner's mother has destituted her and does not support her financially at all. Those are not usual circumstances, but unusual ones, which have to be pleaded and proved. If one were to think that the petitioner, an adult daughter, who is educated enough to stake her claim to any public employment, was a dependent of her father's, the dependency is moral and social. Those are not usual circumstances, but unusual ones, which have to be pleaded and proved. If one were to think that the petitioner, an adult daughter, who is educated enough to stake her claim to any public employment, was a dependent of her father's, the dependency is moral and social. It would likewise be with the mother, even if she has received all funds and terminal benefits of the deceased. 19. In these circumstances, the conclusions reached by the Committee to hold the petitioner disentitled to compassionate appointment, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. 20. In the circumstances that we have noticed, there is no good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 21. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. 22. There shall be no order as to costs.