Judgment:
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant is the daughter of late K. Appukutty who died on 12.7.2004 while working as Income Tax Officer under the respondents leaving the widow, three daughters and mother in a state of mental grief and shock apart from financial stringency. The financial position of the family is stated to be very precarious having huge liabilities like repayment of housing loan and to pay off the debt taken for medical treatment for the deceased employee. In the circumstances, the applicant's mother submitted application for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground(A-1). The applicant also appeared before the Committee constituted by the 1st respondent. However, her case was rejected stating that it exceeded the maximum period of three years and that the family is not in indigent circumstance(A-3). The applicant is challenging the order at Annexure A-3 on the grounds that she cannot be faulted for the respondents keeping the request of the applicant pending for so long without any action and then rejecting the same stating that time limit of 3 ysears is exceeded and that the applicant is entitled to fair consideration without taking into account the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the rules.
2. The respondents fairly submitted that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground were delayed, wanting for clearance from the CBDT, New Delhi and cadre restructuring in the department that her mother is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 12,373/- and a family pension of Rs. 9061/- p.m and that there is a balance of Rs. 96,503/- in the SB account of the applicant being the share of the terminal benefits, that there are no liabilities and therefore, the Committee has not recommended the case of the applicant. They further stated that the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to grant appointment to the dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood or relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. The reasons noted by the Committee for non-recommendation of the case is (i) her mother is an employee of the State Government (ii) her elder sister is a medical student and younger one B.Tech student and the applicant herself has completed M.Sc and doing B.Ed and (iii) the family gets Rs. 21434/- as monthly income through pension and salary. They also contended that as per the instructions of DOPT OM dated 5.5.2003 the maximum period an application for compassionate appointment could be kept alive is three years. They have also produced the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in WP 138657/09 dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure R-1(A) and the orders of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 601/2008 (Annexure R-1(B).
3. I have heard learned counsel for appearing for both parties.
4. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a scheme for giving employment to one family member of deceased employee. It depends on the number of vacancies available for such appointment within one year under 5% DR quota, the number of applications and the degree of financial hardship experienced by the widow of the late employee to sustain the family. The Committee constituted for the purpose would make a comparative analysis of the applications and tabulate them based on certain parameters like size of the family, number of minor dependent children amount of terminal benefits received, ownership of home or other landed property, means of income other than the pension, etc. Those families who have more dependent members who are not educated sufficiently to secure other jobs and whose livelihood is dependent on only the pension will be considered favourably subject to the number of vacancies. According to DOPT guidelines, there is a specific clause regarding those families where there is one earning member. The relevant portions in the DOPT OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998 on the revised scheme for compassionate appointment is extracted below:
Para 9(a) -WHERE THERE IS AN EARNING MEMBER
(a) In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the Government servant, income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the Government servant and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family.
X x x x x x x x
Para 16 (c) "............While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc."
5. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid down certain important principles in the scheme of compassionate appointment, which are reproduced below:
(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground,
x x x x x x
(iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
(iv) Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired government servant is legally impermissible.
(vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not as vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
6. In the case on hand, according to the respondents when the applicant's case was placed before the Committee on 31.5.2007, her mother was working as Deputy Tahsildar getting a salary of Rs. 12,373/- besides the family pension of Rs. 9,061/- per month. In the circumstances, the family of the deceased employee cannot be said to be in financial straits requing consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, as rightly stated by the respondents, her case could not be considered favourably, when compared to other more deserving candidates on the basis of economic hardship, level of education of the applicant and her sibilings. Hence, the Committee did not recommend her case and the recommensdation was accepted by the competent authority. I do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents and the O.A is therefore, dismissed as devoid of merits.
No costs.