JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. The appellant Mr. Shailesh Kumar being aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to give him employment on compassionate grounds, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3048/201 but was not successful before the learned single Judge and has accordingly approached us by way of present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act.
2. Father of the appellant who was serving as a Senior Auditor at Section (CDA Army) expired on 11.9.1998. At that time the appellant was 29 years old, married with children. His mother had expired earlier in December, 1994 and his elder sister had got married in February, 1994.
3. On the death of the father, the appellant received the following terminal benefits:-
"GPF accumulation ... 1,95,987.00
Encashment of Leave ... 77,159.00
CGEIS ... 39,900.00
DCRG ... 2,92,807.00
------------
TOTAL 5,92,853.00
------------"
4. No family pension was sanctioned to the appellant as he was already major in age.
5. The appellant as per the averments made in the appeal had graduated in BSc.(Bio) in the year 1990 and had also worked as medical representative.
6. On 7.1.1999 the appellant made an application for compassionate appointment with the respondent herein, but the said request was rejected by the competent authority in October, 1999. Thereafter, the appellant made some more representations and on not getting any positive response filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 3048/2001. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge vide impugned order and judgment dated 11.4.2002.
7. The learned single Judge held that the appellant was an able bodied qualified person who has received terminal benefits of Rs. 5,92,853/- and had failed to show and establish immediate exigency of employment and, therefore the respondents were justified in rejecting the request for compassionate appointment.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the appellant was unemployed and had looked after his ailing father and therefore, deserves to be given compassionate appointment. He submits that the appellant has been discriminated and two other persons namely Ms. Mamta Pandey and Mr. Vinay Tyagi/Mr. Vikram Tyagi have been given appointments on compassionate grounds, though they had also received equivalent terminal benefits.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the appellant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition, which was filed nearly two and a half years after the death of the father of the appellant.
10. In the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court has stated that the purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate hardship due to sudden death of a bread earner in a family and therefore, there should not be any delay in appointment. In this case and several other cases (Refer: National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Anr. v. Nanak Chand and Anr. , State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ankur Gupta and Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. it has been, inter alia, held that the appointment on compassionate grounds not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and Courts and Tribunals cannot confer benedictionmpelled by sympathetic considerations as such claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, should be strictly in accordance with the scheme and rules an regulations framed for the said purpose. Such claims whenever made should be reasonable and justified on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and died in harness.
11. In the present matter, it is admitted that the appellant was about 29 years old when his father who was in government service expired on 11th September, 1998. He was married and had children. His mother had already expired and his elder sister was by then already married. He received terminal benefits of Rs. 5,92,853/- on the death of his father. His father at that time was earning Rs. 4160/- per month. The committee examining the case of the appellant found that the appellant’s estimated incomen basis of interest payable on the terminal benefit amounted to Rs. 4941/- per month. It may also be noticed that when the committee visited the residence of the appellant, he tried to hide the fact that he was married and had two children. After considring all the factual aspects, his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. It was felt that the appellant was not a dependent family member as such. It may also be noticed that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is mention that even political pressure was put by the appellant on the respondents.
11. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja , the Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment should not be given when there is no financial hardship as the purpose and object behind the side appointment is to tide over sudden financial crisis. While determining and deciding this aspect the Supreme Court held that retiral benefits have to be taken into consideration and cannot be ignored. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but an exception. Reference in this regard may also be made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D and PB) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary and Anr. . Keeping in view the finding of the Committee of the respondents, which even visited the residence of the appellant, and the facts stated and explained in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, it cannot be said that the ‘family’ of the deceased employee has been left in ‘penury’ or ‘without means of livelihood’. Compassionate appointment is not a source for getting employment in government service and employment in government service is certainly not inheritable right as sought to be argued. Care has tube taken that every citizen of this country has equal opportunity and chance to be selected by an open and transparent procedure. Government appointments cannot be claimed on basis of ‘hereditary rights’.
12. In any case we do not find the decision of the respondents to be per se perverse, or arbitrary that can be interfered with by this Court while exercising limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision other authorities is just, equitable and fair.
13.Regarding appointments given on compassionate grounds by the respondents to Ms. Mamta Pandey and Mr. Vinay/Vikram Tyagi, we find that the respondents in their counter affidavit filed on 27th March, 2003 have clarified that the board of officers had recommended the case after taking into account her liabilities, her obligation to look after father-in-law aged 83 years and mother-in-law aged 58 years and the fact that her brother-in-law had retired and was not entitled to any pension. It is also statein the counter affidavit that out of the terminal benefits of Rs. 2,20,671/-, an amount of Rs. 1,66,800/- had already been spent. It must also be remembered that Ms. Mamta Pandey had responsibility of looking after father and mother of the deceased government servant. The respondents have further stated in its counter affidavit that there is no such person as Vinay Tyagi or Vikram Tyagi. However, one Mr. V.K. Sharma had expired on 12.9.1999 and his son Mr. Vikramaditya was appointed as an auditor on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that on verification of the financial status of the family it was found that the wife of Late Mr. V.K. Sharma was earning salary of Rs. 700/- per month. We have some reservations about appointment of Mr. Vikramditya on compassionate grounds as facts in this regard have not been brought out and stated in the counter affidavit. Prima facie it appears that the said appointment was not justified. However, a wrong appointment in one case does not entitle the appellant to among order in his favor. It is well settled that Article 14 is a positive concept and plea of discrimination cannot be applied in a manner that illegality should be again perpetuated by directing a wrong appointment. An illegal or wrong order made in the case of another person, does not justify passing of a wrong order in the present Appeal in favor of the appellant. This will only give legal sanctity to a wrong and illegal order. Courts correct injustice and strike down illegalities. Referencing this regard may be made to decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad and Anr. Gursharan Singh and Ors. v. NDMC and Ors. .
14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present Appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.