W.P. No.5774.09
Writ Petition No. 5774 of 2009
09/03/2011
Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on admission.
This petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the
order dated 05-05-2008 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,
Jabalpur; whereby, Original Application No.
242/2002 filed by the petitioner seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds has
been rejected.
The facts briefly are that father of the
petitioner, Gopal Prasad, employed with
Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur, died in
harness on 27-05-1995. The petitioner being
dependent filed an application on 22-06-1995
seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds. His request for appointment was
rejected by order dated 25-04-2001. Aggrieved
whereof the petitioner filed Original
Application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, raising
contentions therein that, between the period
W.P. No.5774.09
from 1995 to 2001 seven Boards were
constituted for considering requests for
appointment on compassionate grounds. It was
contended that only the favoured one were
granted appointment and the claim of the
petitioner was not objectively considered.
The respondents while contradicting the
contentions put forth by the petitioner before
the Tribunal stated that after the death of
father of the petitioner an application form for
appointment on compassionate grounds was
sent to the widow vide letter dated 21-07-1995,
in response whereof the same was returned on
07-02-1997. It was contended that the case of
the petitioner was placed before the Board in
August, 1997. The Board considered the case of
the petitioner as per the policy guide lines and
awarded 54 marks. It was further contended
that at relevant time there was only one
vacancy of group ‘D’ and a candidate who
secured 83 marks was appointed. An
information to that effect was sent to the widow
on 12-08-1997. Thereafter for subsequent year
fresh form was tendered which was received
duly filled on 29-09-1999. The Board considered
W.P. No.5774.09
the case of the petitioner along with 3 others
for three vacant posts of group ‘D’. It is
contended that the petitioner was awarded 40
marks whereas other 3 candidates respectively
secured 81, 72 and 63 marks and were
preferred for appointment. Thereafter further
application form was sought for on 04-04-2000
which was placed before the Board in January,
2001 for consideration of appointment on
compassionate grounds against eight vacancies
of group ‘D’. It is urged that candidates
securing 88, 87, 84, 83, 78, 76 and 76 marks
respectively were appointed. An information to
that effect was tendered to the widow of late
Gopal Prasad on 25-04-2009. Though some
disputed facts raised before the Tribunal in
respect of consideration of the petitioner by
respective Boards, however, the same were of
no assistance to the petitioner as no cogent
material in support thereof was brought before
the Tribunal.
The Tribunal after considering the rival
contentions and dwelling upon the factual
aspects of the matter dismissed the Original
Application preferred by the petitioner for
W.P. No.5774.09
compassionate appointment by the impugned
order, which is being challenged in this
petition.
It is reiterated by the petitioner that there
is no objective consideration by the Board in
respect of appointment on compassionate
ground. It is urged that had there been so, the
Board ought to have awarded higher marks to
the petitioner as would have facilitated his
appointment on compassionate grounds. During
the course of hearing the petitioner has also
adverted to various circulars issued from time
to time, such as Annexures-P/12, P/13 and P/14
dated 08-06-1989, 30-07-1989 and 12-07-2001.
The circulars in our considered opinion does
not improve the status of the petitioner nor it
leads to enhancement of marks which were
alloted to him on the basis of the policy in
vogue for appointment on compassionate
grounds.
Admittedly, the petitioner got less marks
in comparison to other applicants between the
period from 1997 till 2001. It is also not in
dispute that after the death of Gopal Prasad on
27-05-1995, the family has faired well and have
W.P. No.5774.09
survived the for such a long period. In Punjab
National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar
Taneja : (2004) 7 SCC 265 it was observed by
their Lordships :-
“4……..It is to be seen that the
appointment on compassionate ground
is not a source of recruitment but
merely an exception to the requirement
regarding appointments being made on
open invitation of application on merits.
Basic intention is that on the death of
the employee concerned his family is
not deprived of the means of livelihood.
The object is to enable the family to get
over sudden financial crisis.”
The Division Bench of this Court in
Virendra Bahadur Singh v. Union of India and
others : 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. 13 has held :-
“5. Even on merits, petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. Deceased
died on 17-2-1990 and the family
has survived for more than 12
years. It is not pointed out how, in
the face of statement by
respondents, the family is still in
financial distress. Object of
compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis and relieving the
family from financial distress due
to the death of the sole bread
earner of the family. Therefore,
this type of appointment cannot be
W.P. No.5774.09offered. As a matter of course, only
deserving cases have to be found
and offered compassionate
appointments, more particularly
when respondents have kept only
5% of the vacancies falling under
direct recruitment quota in Group
“C” and “D” posts for
compassionate appointment.
Decision of the Apex Court on
which reliance is placed by the
petitioner is of no assistance to
advance the submission raised by
him.”
Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in
Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj
Kumar Dehariya : 2010 (3) SCC 213 has held :-
“33- In view of the foregoing discussion,
we proceed to record our conclusions as
follows:
1. The grant of compassionate appointment
is not a vested legal right. It is only a
benefit granted in certain circumstances
de hors the normal rule of appointment
and when the employer has a right to
evolve an appropriate policy after
considering various factors for granting
such a benefit, the considerations have to
be made in accordance with the policy
that is prevailing at that point of time.
2. When it is held that compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and
when grant of such appointment is
governed by the rules and policies
prevailing in an establishment, then
consideration as per the rules existing is
W.P. No.5774.09required to be made and consideration as
per the rules existing is required to be
made and consideration on the basis of a
policy, which is given up by the employer
and which has no application at that
point of time cannot be insisted upon.
3. Having regard to the exceptional nature
of this appointment and taking note of
the fact that it is granted under a special
scheme carved out de hors the normal
mode of recruitment, the same has to be
governed as per the policies or
provisions governing such appointment
prevalent at a particular point of time
when consideration is to be made, and
not on the basis of a policy which was in
vogue and has been given up by the
employer due to changed circumstances.
4. As compassionate appointment is
granted by carving out a special scheme
contrary to the normal mode of
recruitment and when the employer or
the government is at liberty to evolve a
scheme for granting such appointment
has to be made in accordance with the
scheme or policy that is in existence.
5. The decision rendered in T. Swamy Dass
(supra) and Heeralal Baria (supra) do not
lay down the correct law and are hereby
overruled.
6. Any right flowing from a settlement
between the employer and employees’
union or association has to be in a
different compartment.
7. It would be the obligation of the
employer to deal with the
application with immediately and
promptitude so that the grievance
of a family in distress gets a fair
W.P. No.5774.09
treatment in accordance with law.”
In view of above we find no discrepancy in
the order passed by the Tribunal as would
warrant any interference in a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result the petition fails and is
hereby dismissed. No costs.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC