Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 22 (JK)

Sikander Lal v. Union of India

2024-01-31

SINDHU SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 23.06.2014 bearing No. 1456/663 vide which the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. 2. The father of the petitioner was working as a Mason with the respondents and had been performing his duties diligently. He was posted at Chizami, District Phek Nagaland and suffered a heart attack, which lead to his death. The untimely death of his father left the family without any source of sustenance, as they were all dependent on the petitioner?s father. The mother of the petitioner, in order to sustain the family and remove their hardship applied for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis. 3. The application seeking petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds was made within the prescribed period after complying with all the procedural requirements. The respondents, after considering the application of the petitioner sought some additional documents from him including affidavit, income certificate, dependency certificate as well as other relevant documents which were provided to them. The case of the petitioner remained under consideration for a long time and the respondents vide their communication dated 23.06.2014, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the married son is not dependent on Government service and not eligible for compassionate appointment. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had rejected his case for compassionate appointment arbitrarily without any reasonable basis. The respondents have failed to consider that the purpose of appointment on compassionable basis is to prevent vacancy and suffering of the family members of deceased employee. The respondents without considering the fact that the family including petitioner were dependent on their father for sustenance have rejected the case on erroneous ground that married son is not dependent. 5. It is averred by the petitioner that this cannot be a ground to reject consideration of his case for compassionate appointment without considering the facts and circumstances of their case and the hardship which the family is facing. The respondents have failed to appreciate the fact that the purpose of policy for compassionate appointment is to prevent the vagrancy and suffering of the family members of the deceased employee and also to consider whether the family is able to make the ends meet. The respondents have failed to appreciate the fact that the purpose of policy for compassionate appointment is to prevent the vagrancy and suffering of the family members of the deceased employee and also to consider whether the family is able to make the ends meet. The respondents without examining the financial condition of the family and dependency have arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the presumption that married son does not fall in the category of dependant. 6. The respondents in their reply admit that the father of the petitioner died during harness and the mother of the petitioner, i.e., Smt. Sabrana Devi was informed of the provisions of compassionate appointment and eligibility of sons/daughter of the deceased for suitable post in Group C and D on the basis of merit subject to the availability of vacancy. An application was also sent to her along with the clear instructions to submit the same within one year from the demise of the Government servant. The mother of the petitioner, however, chose to nominate her younger son, i.e., petitioner amongst all her children for consideration on compassionate appointment and the case of the petitioner was, accordingly, placed before the competent authority. 7. During the scrutiny of the form, it was found that only the name of one son was mentioned whereas as per the service records, the deceased was survived by two sons and two daughters. The respondents, therefore, requested for providing complete details regarding the family members. While considering the affidavit and the papers subsequently provided by the wife of the deceased, it was transpired that the petitioner Sikander Lal, who was nominated for compassionate appointment was married and as per policy instructions in force, the married son is not considered to be dependent on Government servant. The matter was further clarified vide DOP&T letter dated 30.05.2013. 13 Whether ‘married son’ can be considered for compassionate appointment? No. A married son is not considered dependent on a government servant. 8. The mother of the petitioner was, accordingly, informed that the married son is not eligible for compassionate appointment and it was advised to her that if she herself is interested for the same, she may apply and a form was also sent to her for filing and providing the necessary details. The petitioner, aggrieved of this communication, has filed the present writ petition. 9. The petitioner, aggrieved of this communication, has filed the present writ petition. 9. The respondents have relied on the frequently asked questions for compassionate appointment issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. In terms of FAQ No. 13, it has been settled that a married son is not considered dependent on Government servant. The application of the petitioner on compassionate basis has been rejected only on the ground that he being a married son, could not be eligible for consideration. 10. The petitioner by way of rejoinder have placed on record an affidavit, a subsequent modification made on 25.02.2015, wherein the question that whether a married son can be considered for compassionate appointment was modified. The answer for the same is reproduced as under: “Answer: ‘Yes’, if he otherwise fulfils all the other requirements of the Scheme, i.e., he is otherwise eligible and fulfils the criteria laid down in this Department’s O.M. dated 16th January, 2013. This would be effective from the date of issue of this FAQ viz. 25th February, 2015 and the cases of compassionate appointment already settled w.r.t. the FAQs dated 30th May, 2013, may not be reopened. Sr. No. 13 of the FAQs dated 30th May, 2013 may be deemed to have been modified.” 11. It is submitted that his case for compassionate appointment requires consideration as the only consideration required would be eligibility as per the policy. 12. The scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government revised consolidated instructions was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, on 9th October, 1996. The scheme for compassionate appointment defines the dependent family members as under: 2. 12. The scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government revised consolidated instructions was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, on 9th October, 1996. The scheme for compassionate appointment defines the dependent family members as under: 2. TO WHOM APPLICABLE “(A) of a Government servant who – (a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or (b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rule's 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for Group 'D' Government servants); or (c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for Group 'D' Government Servants); or (B) of a member of the Armed Forces who – (a) dies during service; or (b) is killed in action; or (c) is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment.” 13. The eligibility, in the scheme for compassionate appointment, has been defined under Section 5 of the scheme which reads as under: 5. ELIGIBILITY “(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (b) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. 14. In terms of the scheme, the dependent family members includes the son and as per the scheme, if the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. The respondents have also enclosed in the scheme for relative points, merit and revised procedure for selection, in which, after considering the suggestions/opinion received from various forums, the competent authority had decided to revise the points based on a hundred point scale for assessing the merit of the candidate for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in headquarters of Ministry of Defence. These points are allocated on the basis of family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of earning member and income from property and also the market value of movable/immovable property. The weightage fixed is strictly followed for assessing the comparative merit keeping the instructions issued by the DoP&T/MoD as amended from time to time. 15. These points are allocated on the basis of family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of earning member and income from property and also the market value of movable/immovable property. The weightage fixed is strictly followed for assessing the comparative merit keeping the instructions issued by the DoP&T/MoD as amended from time to time. 15. These guidelines were meant for various headquarters/subordinate offices/I S Organizations of the Ministry of Defence to ensure appropriate action for the cases of compassionate appointment. 16. In view of the scheme for compassionate appointment and guidelines framed, the petitioner falls within the category of dependents as there is no differentiation with regard to a son or a married son in the said scheme. The petitioner, being eligible for compassionate appointment, moved an application for the same, however, whether the appointment if any is to be based upon the assessment of the merit in accordance with the scheme and revised procedure of selection dated 22.01.2010. 17. There is no bar in considering the claim for compassionate appointment of a married son who could be dependent upon his father for his sustenance, therefore, even though the respondents have rejected the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of FAQ dated 30.05.2013, the same stood revised on 25.02.2015 but the but the only condition was that the cases settled prior to 30.05.2013 would not be reopened. 18. There being no distinction with regard to son or a married son in the category of dependents, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he being a married son cannot be considered as a dependent of the deceased is arbitrary, unreasonable and is without any basis. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 23.06.2014 rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the policy within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents by the petitioner. 20. Disposed of.