Judgment:
Navneet Kumar, Member (J).
1. The present Original Applicant is filed under Section 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs:-
(a). That this Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 3.2.2010 as contained in Annexure No. A-1 and direct opposite parties to appoint applicant on one of the post in the department according to his qualification and ability under dying in harness rules.
(b). Any other relief deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case with cost of O.A. in favour of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the son of the ex-employee who died while in service. It is indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant while working in the respondents organization died on 24.3.2000. Subsequently in 2001, the applicant applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was rejected in 2005. Thereafter, the applicant preferred O.A. No. 587/2005. Subsequently, the case of the applicant was again rejected by the respondents in 2010. Therefore, the present O.A. is preferred by the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicants family is in very penurious condition and it requires consideration for grant of compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it was indicated by the respondents that the case of the applicant was considered and rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee (in short CRC) in its meeting held on 10,11 and 12th March, 2005, but the case of the applicant was not recommended by the Committee for appointment taking into account the inter-se-merit of all such cases in terms of assets and liabilities and indigence of the families, like total number of dependent minor children, marriage of daughters etc. The case of the applicant was again considered in compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed in O.A. No. 587/2005. The case of the applicant was considered in 2008 along with number of other cases and again the meeting of CRC held on 8,10 and 16.12.2009 and finally the case of the applicant was placed before the CRC in its meeting held on 5th and 6th January, 2012. But in all these meetings, the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in Group D cadre could not be recommended by the CRC due to limited number of vacancies in the said cadre. As such, it was communicated to the applicant. Not only this, the learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that ex-employee died in 2000 and for a sufficient length of time, the family of the deceased employee could have survive , as such there is no need for reconsideration of the case of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has filed Rejoinder reply and through rejoinder reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated. It is once again indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that family of the deceased employee is very large and there are number of daughters of marriageable age, as such it requires consideration for issuing a direction upon the respondents for reconsidering the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the applicant is son of the ex-employee who died while working in the respondents organization. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation in January, 2001 for considering his case for grant of compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was considered in2005 and rejected. The applicant filed O.A. No.587/2005 wherein the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground and pass reasoned order as per rules and regulation. After the said order of the Tribunal, the case of the applicant was considered and could not found suitable for grant of compassionate appointment as such, the respondents passed an order. The applicant subsequently preferred O.A. No.62/2008 challenging the order dated 22.2.2007 and also for issuing a direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. The said O.A. was allowed and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of his appointment on compassionate ground within a period of 3 months. It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the case of the applicant was considered by the CRC in its meeting held in 2005. Thereafter, in2008, 2009 and finally in 2012. In all these meetings, the respondents considered the case of the applicant and could not found eligible to be given appointment on compassionate ground . As such, the case of the applicant was considered and rejected by the authorities. Now, the applicant has challenged the order dated 3.2.2010 in which the case of the applicant was considered but due to non availability of Group D post under compassionate appointment quota it could not be approved. In the said order, the respondents have categorically pointed out that the case of the applicant was not recommended by the CRC, U.P. Circle taking into account the inter-se merit of all such cases in terms of assets and liabilities and indigence of the families like total number of dependent minor children, marriage of daughters,, responsibility of aged parents, prolonged and major ailments, financial condition and other relevant factors. It is also indicated by the committee in their meeting held in2008 that the case of the applicant may be kept pending for reconsideration on receipt of vacancies duly received by the Screening Committee from Postal Directorate, New Delhi. But when there was no vacancy, the case of the applicant was finally rejected by the authorities.
7. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
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.
8. The Honble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 and has been pleased to observe that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule, that recruitment to public services should be on basis of merit, by open invitation, providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in selection process. Further it was observed by the Honble Apex Court as Under:-
8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
9. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in (2009) 13 SCC 600, the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
10. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of inheritance.
11. In SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das the Honble Apex Court held that:
15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefore viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions a re raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme must be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.
12. This Court, times without number, has held that appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted as a matter of course. It should be granted only when dependents of the deceased employee who expired all of a sudden while being in service and by reason thereof, his dependents have been living in penury.
11. As observed by the Honble Apex Court that whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment.
12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties as well as observations of the Honble Apex Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the present O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.