Appropriate Authority and anr. Vs. R.C. Chawla and ors.

- labour & servicesappointment on compassionate grounds: [dr. m.k. sharma & dr. b.s. chauhan, jj] u.p. recruitment of dependents of government servants dying in harness rules, 1974 - time-limit of five years prescribed in relevant rules for seeking compassionate appointment - point of time from which five years to be reckoned in case of presumed death under evidence act, 1872, section 108 (missing person not heard alive for seven years) question left open whether time-limit should be reckoned when seven years period under section 108 has expired - however, for the purpose of deciding this case, assumption made that five years to be reckoned after seven years under section 108 had expired and thus, request for compassionate appointment was beyond time-limit of five years prescribed in relevant rules.. appointment on compassionate grounds: [dr. m.k. sharma & dr. b.s. chauhan, jj] purpose of held, it is to provide immediate financial assistance to family who has lost its breadwinner. request for compassionate appointment should therefore be proximate to employees death. compassionate appointment is not a bonanza or another source of recruitment. it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. in the instant case appellants father became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. that being the position, this is not a fit case for exercising supreme courts jurisdiction in appellants favour. - in those circumstances, the high court felt that the impending litigation altogether cannot be ignored while determining the fair market value on the ground that the transferor had agreed to indemnify the transferee or that in the long run the litigation will fail. the well known principle of administrative law that if a relevant factor is ignored, the order made becomes vitiated has to be applied in the present case as well......defence colony, new delhi to show that the value has been understated by more than 15 per cent. even assuming for the sake of argument that the valuation assigned by the appropriate authority to the property in question is correct, one important factor has been ignored by the appropriate authority, namely, that the property was under litigation and proceedings were still pending in the court of law at the time when the sale was sought to be made and the additional district judge in fact had issued an injunction on may 27, 1994 restraining the same, transfer or parting with there possession of the property. the department brushed aside this important factor as regards pending litigation, which had been initiated by the step-brother of the transferor in which the title of the transferor had been challenged. in those circumstances, the high court felt that the impending litigation altogether cannot be ignored while determining the fair market value on the ground that the transferor had agreed to indemnify the transferee or that in the long run the litigation will fail. whatever may be the other argument that had been addressed by the parties concerned, it is clear that the pending litigation assumed sufficient importance in the matter. the high court took note of the fact that in other cases where there is pending litigation in respect of properties which have been subjected to proceedings under chapter xx-c of the act had been discounted by 10 per cent. it is not necessary to determine this particular percentage. the well known principle of administrative law that if a relevant factor is ignored, the order made becomes vitiated has to be applied in the present case as well. on that basis, the order made by the appropriate authority is vitiated and on this short ground we find that the view taken by the high court is correct and calls for no interference.3. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at rs. 10,000/-.4. appeal dismissed with costs.