1. The applicant is the son of late Shri Chironjilal, who died on 12.5.1998 after having retired on medical grounds on 25.1.1988. The applicant's case for appointment, under compassionate ground, was duly processed by the General Manager-Respondent No. 3. After having considered the case favourably, applicant's name was kept in the waiting list for consideration for appointment, but in turn.
Unfortunately, the turn never came. By passage of time the respondents themselves come up with a new policy on 2.3.1990 indicating that only those who have reached upto the age of 57 years could come up for consideration of appointment of their sons/daughters/wards on compassionate grounds. The father of the applicant in this case died in 1988. Apparently, the applicant's case was rejected by applying executive instructions with retrospective effect.
2. In the counter, the respondents have raised objections to the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment mainly on two grounds.
Firstly, by an order dated 7.4.1986, the Department of Personnel raised the eligibility age of superannuation on medical grounds of Group 'D' employees to 57 years for the purpose of compassionate appointment since their normal age of superannuation is 60 years. The Ordnance Factory Board were of the opinion that Group 'C' industrial employees whose normal age of retirement is 60 years should also get the benefit of compassionate appointment if they retire on medical grounds on attaining the age of 57 years. The issue was subsequently considered by the Ministry of Defence and it was decided to raise the eligibility age of retirement on medical grounds of Group 'C' industrial employees from 55 years to 57 for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The applicant's case is covered under this Regulation/Instructions. This new policy was, however, introduced w.e.f. 2.3.1990. On the basis of the aforesaid Regulations the applicant's case was referred to the Ordnance Factory Board, Calcutta for sympathetic consideration. The proposal was, however, rejected. The respondents have taken yet another objection and that relates to their being a ban on direct recruitment in Ordnance Factory. The applicant appears to have been informed of the position by Annexure-A-8 dated 13.7.1990.
3. Before we adjudicate the liquidity of applicant's claim, it would be apposite to mention the position of law on the subject.Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1998 SCC (L&S) 31, the Apex Court held that compassionate employment is not a vested right. The object in providing such appointments is to give immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis on account of untimely demise of the sole bread earning member. Again, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar (Mrs.), 1994 SCC (L&S) 737, their Lordships held that the Courts/ Tribunals should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic consideration ought to be weighed, falls within the scope of law, however, hard the case shall never be allowed to be processed. The Apex Court also laid down that the Courts/Tribunals should not directly issue orders for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents can only be directed to consider such claims on genuine grounds. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the organisation in piquant situation. It has to be ensured that the family is in indigent condition and do not have any other alternative sources of income or may not have any gainfully employed son/unmarried daughter that could provide financial assistance directly or indirectly. Such employments cannot also be allowed after a long lapse of time since the immediate need of financial assistance could be presumed to be over if the family has survived through sufficient period of time after the demise of the employee. The law also stipulates that such an employment could be even offered to an unmarried daughter if she gives an undertaking to support the parents family even after the marriage. Such employments could only be offered in Group 'C' or Group 'B' categories depending on the circumstances.
Based on the catena of judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of India (Department of Personnel) have since issued consolidated instructions on the subject of compassionate appointment and those are available in circular No. 14014/ 6/86-Estt.
(D) dated 30.6.1987.
Details of the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of compassionate appointment are available in the cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.,Jagdish Prasad v.State of Bihar and Anr.,SCC301 and Union of India and Anr. v.Bhagwan Singh,Auditor General of India and Ors.
v. Shri G. Arantha Rajeswara Rao 4. We shall now examine the validity of objections raised by the respondents in denying the applicant's claim herein. It is not in doubt that the father of the applicant died in 1988. It is also not in dispute that the new policy was introduced w.e.f. March, 1990. In such a situation the applicant's case could have been appropriately covered under the law / instructions in operation prior to 20.3.1990. It is well settled in law that executive orders cannot have the retrospective application. If any authority is needed for this proposition, it is available in the case of Govind Prasad v. R.G. Prasad, 437. The respondents decision to deny the applicant's claim on the basis of new policy cannot, therefore, be sustained in terms of law as above-mentioned.
5. We also find that the respondents have taken objection of their being a ban on such employment. This runs contrary to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in their O.M. No.14014/22/92,Estt. (D) dated 25.1.1993. The relevant portion of the instructions indicate that there is no ban and sincere, effort should be made to make compassionate appointment expeditiously keeping in view all the instructions on the subject. We even find the revised instructions for compassionate appointment towards of deceased persons were subsequently issued by the Department of Personnel and Training again through an O.M. dated 22.2.1993.
6. We have perused the records thoroughly and find that the respondent (No. 3) had examined the case with reference to the law laid down on the subject keeping in view the large number of dependant members of the family and the deteriorating financial conditions encountered by them, the applicant's case was considered favourably. The details on the basis of which the applicant's case was considered are available in Annexure-5-A and the case was forwarded to the Ordnance Factory Board to consider the applicant's case even by ignoring the effective date of consideration. Since the proposal made was based on the law/instructions laid on the subject, we do not find any ground on the basis of which the respondents like the Ministry of Defence or Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board would go backwards on their promise.
In facts as per the law laid down on the subject, such responsible respondents are bound to act by the standards by which they profess (See Ramana Dayaram Shett v. International Airport Authority, (1979)3 SCC 489).
7. In the light of the detailed discussions aforementioned, the O.A.deserves to be allowed and we do so accordingly with the following directions-- (i) The respondents shall reconsider the applicant's case for compassionate grounds as Unskilled Labour or any other comparable Group 'D' post based on the law/instructions laid down on the subject.
(ii) Our orders in respect of the above shall be complied with in a period of four months from the date of issue of this order.
(iii) The applicant be informed of the position with reference to his appeal dated 28.9.1990 as at Annexure-A-12.