CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7813 of 1995 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: BHAGWAN SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/1995 BENCH: J.S. VERMA & K.S. PARIPOORNAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 155
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PARIPOORNAN, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The Union of India, respondent in O.A. No. 204/92 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, jodhpur and the Railway Authorities, Northern
Railway, have filed this appeal against the Order of the Tribunal dated
22.2.1993. The respondent herein as petitioner filed O.A. No. 204/92
praying for quashing the order denying him employment on compassionate
grounds and further prayed that appointment may be given to him. The
Tribunal by the impugned Order quashed the orders assailed before it and
directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the
respondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and provide
him with an appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable within three
.months. Hence, this appeal by the union of India and the Railway
authorities. Northern Railway.
We heard Dr. Anand Prakash, senior Advocate who appeared for the appellants
and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent. The facts of this
case lie in narrow compass. One Ram Singh, a Senior Clerk in the Railways
died on 12.9.1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the
respondent who was a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent passed the
Higher Secondary Examination in 1983. Stating that he attained majority in
1980/81 he sought appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected
by orders dated 21.9.1987, 19.6.1990 and 11.6.1991. The Authorities look
the view that the application was beyond the period of limitation (five
years), that the case of the respondent was not covered by the relevant
rules, that at the time of demise of Ram Singh, there were two major sons
of the deceased who did not seek employment and that the family was not in
financial distress. The Central Administrative Tribunal referred to the
last order dated 11.6.1991 wherein it was stated there since that were two
brothers of the applicant who were majors at the time of demise of the
father, an appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered and
held that the other reasons stated earlier -bar of limitation and that the
respondent will not be covered by the rule, have been given a go- bye. It
was further held that the rejection of the application of the respondent
simply on the ground that two elder brothers of the applicant/respondent,
who were majors, were available at the time of the death of the father, was
unjustified and. therefore, the application of the respondent should be re-
considered and an appointment on com-passionate grounds should be provided,
if the respondent is otherwise qualified.
Appellants’ Counsel laid stress on Rule V contained in the communication
dated 12.12,1990 and contended that normally all appointments on
compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the
date of occurrence of the event and, in no case, it should be more than 10
years from the date of the death. Further condition specified in the said
communication is that the request for appointment on compassionate ground
should be received by the Railway Administration as and when the applicant
becomes a major, say, within a period of one year. According to the
respondent, the above rules will not apply since Ram Singh died in 1972 and
the respondent applied before the rules dated 12.12,1990 came into force.
Counsel for the respondent contended that it is true that normally all
appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of
five years from the date of occurrence of the event, but this period can be
relaxed in exceptional cases.
It is common ground, that normally all appointments on compassionate
grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of
occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. In
this case Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972. He left behind his wife, two major
sons and the respondent, a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent
attained majority in 1980/81. There is no material on record to show that
the respondent applied within 5 years from “the event” or within one year
from the date of his attaining majority. As early as 21.9.1987 an
application filed by the respondent was dismissed. The subsequent
applications filed in that behalf were dismissed on 19.6.1990 and
11.6.1991. There is material on record to show that the respondent was aged
33 years at the time of making the application and the last application
which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed nearly 20 years after the
death of Ram Singh. Patently the application is barred.
The facts of this case disclose that on the date when Ram Singh died
(12.9.1972) he had, besides the respondent, who was a minor then, two major
sons and a wife. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any
appointment on compassionate grounds. As stated by this Court in Smt.
Sushma Gosain & ors. v. Union of India & Others, [1989] (2) SCALE 473 =
A.l.R. (1989) S.C. 1976 :
“…………. in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground,
there should not be any delay in appointment, The purpose of providing
appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to
death of the bread earner in the family, such appointment should,
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The above decision was followed in Smt. Phooltvati v. Union of India &
Ors., AIR (1991) SC 469. The reason for making compassionate appointment
which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to, the
family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other
earning member in the family. Matters which should be considered while
giving an appointment in public services on compassionate grounds have been
laid down by a Bench of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v, “State of
Haryana & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 138 to the following effect:
“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 not 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
cases, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and
to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependents 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 dependents 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……………..”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is settled law, that even if the Court reaches the conclusion that the
applicant has made out a case, all that the High Court or Administrative
Tribunal can do, is only to direct the authority concerned to consider the
claim of the applicant in accordance with relevant law or rules, if any.
(See: State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, [1944] 4 S.C.C. 448.)
It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for
compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September, 1972. At
the time Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972 there were two major sons and the
mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in
the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds.
For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any
difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central
Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in
directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for
appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an
appointment, if he is found suitable. We set aside the order of the
Tribunal dated 22.2.1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Appeal allowed.