Yasoda Mehra Vs. The Union of India and Ors - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI   W.P.(S) No. 4142 of 2014   ­­­­­­­ Yasoda Mehra, w/o Late Satyanarayan Mehra, resident of village  Gujharia, PO Basen, PS Kersai, Dist. Simdega … Petitioner  Versus 1.  The Union of India 2.  The Officer­in­Charge, Record Office,  General Reserve Engineer  Force, Dighi Camp, PO & PS Pune, Dist. Pune 3. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Pune Accounts Office, General  Reserve Engineer Force, Dighi Camp, PO & PS Pune, Dist. Pune ...   Respondents   ­­­­­­­        CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR     ­­­­­­     For the Petitioner          : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate   For the Respondent ­U.O.I       : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC   ­­­­­­­  06/16.06.2017   On death of her husband namely, Satyanarayan Mehra,  who   had   joined   General   Reserve   Engineer   Force,   the  widow­petitioner   submitted   an   application   in   prescribed   Form   for  compassionate appointment on 26.04.2011. When even post­retiral  dues accrued on death of her husband and family pension were not  paid   to   her,   she   approached   this   Court   by   filing   the   present   writ  petition on 13.08.2014.   2. Briefly stated, husband of the petitioner while posted at  Gangtok   died   in   harness   on   21.07.2010.     At   the   instance   of   the  respondent­authority   who   forwarded   prescribed   D.D.   Form   for  compassionate appointment, the petitioner submitted her application  on 26.04.2011 and the Board of Officers assessed her eligibility and  economic status of the family, in the light of the extant guidelines.  She was awarded 66 Relative Merit Points on a 100 point scale and in  the month of June, 2012, she was placed at Sl. No. 43 along with  230   candidates   for   compassionate   appointment.   In   the  counter­affidavit, the respondents have asserted that Rs. 4, 00, 370/­  2 has now been paid to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.05.2016 as  terminal dues payable to her.   It is further pleaded that she is paid  Rs. 9574/­ per month as family pension.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the  reasons   disclosed   in   the   counter­affidavit   for   not   offering  compassionate   appointment   to   the   petitioner   are   contrary   to   the  Office   Memorandums   issued   by   the   respondents   themselves.     It   is  contended that the petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 43, in view  of the facts disclosed in  paragraph no. 11 of the counter­affidavit,  should have been offered appointment, however, she has been denied  compassionate   appointment   by   illegally   excluding   her   from  consideration.   4. As   against   the   above,   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respondents   submits   that   the   petitioner   whose   eligibility   has   been  assessed on a 100 point scale has not pleaded that assessment by the  department is incorrect or that any other candidate who was placed  below her in the merit­list has been offered appointment. Contending  that   the   policy   for   compassionate   appointment   is   not   under  challenge, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition deserves  dismissal.  5. Present is a case which presents a glaring example, how  self­contradicting   an   affidavit   a   respondent   can   file.   The  counter­affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent­Union of India is  illuminating.   While   pleading   that   the   object   for   granting  compassionate   appointment   is   to   enable   a   family   to   tide   over   the  sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial  destitution,   the   respondents   have   pleaded   that   the   merit­list   on   a  100 point scale is revised each month though, vacancies are released  year­wise.   The petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 43 out of 230  candidates in June, 2012, has now been placed at Sl. No. 238 out of  726  as  on  30.09.2016.    Just   to  mention,   the  counter­affidavit   has  been filed on 10.02.2017.  The letter dated 09.03.2001 issued by the  Ministry of Defence by which a revised procedure for selection was  3 notified   records   that   case   of   a   candidate   for   compassionate  appointment shall be considered on three occasions and if the Board  of Officers do not recommend the name of an applicant for want of  vacancies,   the   final   decision   shall   be   communicated   by   a   detailed  speaking order.  It is not the case pleaded by the respondents that the  petitioner's   claim   was   considered   on   three   occasions.     Mrs.   Nitu  Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent­Union of India states  that the petitioner's case was considered atleast once.   Be that as it  may, neither there is any pleading on this aspect nor any document  has been produced by the respondents to assert that the petitioner's  case was considered by the Board of Officers. Moreover, what has  been instructed through letter dated 09.03.2001, appears to have not  been followed by the respondents.  In the counter­affidavit, it has not  been stated that finally the petitioner's case has been closed for want  of   vacancy.   Paragraph   nos.   4   and   5   of   Scheme   for   Compassionate  appointment­Relative   Merit   Points   and   Revised   Procedure   for  Selection   issued   by   Ministry   of   Defence   dated   09.03.2001   are  significant, which are extracted below :

“4. The Weightage fixed above is to be strictly followed   for   assessing   comparative   merit   keeping   in   view   the   instructions issued by the DOP&T from time to time.  Further   all applications may be acknowledged immediately on receipt   and decision of the Board of Officers (BOO) be communicated   to the applicants after every sitting.  The system of WAITING   LIST   have   already   been   discarded   (Ref.   DOP&T   OM   F.   No.   14014/23/99­Estt   (D)   dated   03.12.1999).   The   candidates   are required  to apply  only once and  the  application  if  not   recommends in the first BOO for want of   vacancy is to be   considered a fresh alongwith the fresh applicants by the BOO   on   three   occasions   respectively   and   ensure   that   the   final   decision   is   communicated   to   the   applicant   by   a   detailed   speaking order.  5. Moreover, it has been decided that the Committee   (BOO)   for   considering   a   request   for   appointment   on   4 compassionate grounds should take into account the position   regarding availability of vacancy for such appointment and it   should   recommend   appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   only in a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for   appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   will   be   available   within a year that too within the ceiling of 5% meant for the   purpose.     This   would   ensure   grant   of   compassionate   appointment within a year.”

6. Admittedly,   eligibility   of   the   petitioner   is   not   disputed  rather, she has been found eligible and her name has been included  in the list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground.  However,   the   respondents   have   pleaded   that   “only   the   really  deserving cases” of compassionate appointment are considered. By  deserving cases, it appears, the respondents intend to refer to the  merit­list.  In my opinion, once claim for compassionate appointment  of   a   claimant   is   included   in   the   merit­list,   after   assessing   his/her  eligibility   etc.,   there   cannot   be   selection   based   on   comparative  destitution, that is, more destitute or less destitute.  The problem is  compounded when  it is found that the  consolidated list is revised  every   month,   year­after­year   and   it   is   not   confined   to   list   of  candidates   prepared   for   one   particular   year.   Neither   from   the  counter­affidavit filed by the  respondents nor from  the Scheme of  Compassionate appointment brought on record by the respondents, I  find   reference   of   any   rule/guidelines   for   preparing   merit­list   of  destitutes   each   month.   Once   the   respondents   admit   that   they  released   quota   for   appointment   year­wise,   appointments   for   each  year   within   the   vacancies   notified   must   be   made.   The  counter­affidavit filed by the respondents is completely silent on the  aspect,   how   the   petitioner's   claim   for   compassionate   appointment  was dealt with.   If vacancies for compassionate appointment has to  be   released   each   year,   in   my   considered   opinion,   the   list   of  candidates   prepared   each   year   should   be   first   considered   against  those   vacancies.   The   respondents   claim   that   they   released  5 52   vacancies   for   compassionate   appointment   for   three   years.  Admittedly, had the petitioner's claim, who was placed at Sl. No. 43,  been   considered   against   those   vacancies   she   would   have   got  appointment. If the procedure adopted by the respondents, that is,  revision   in   the   merit­list   every   month,   is   sanctioned   in   law,     in   a  given   case   like   the   present   one   an   applicant   can   never   get  appointment.  7.  In so far as husband of the petitioner is concerned, the  respondents   admit   that   Border   Roads   Organization   is   involved   in  infrastructure, development and construction of roads, bridges and  other civil engineering works in far flung and remote areas in North  East and Northern part of the country,  having mountainous and high  altitude terrains and harsh climatic conditions, where death rate due  to difficult working condition is very high.  About 130­150 personnel  each   year   die   in   those   areas.     Definitely,   while   admitting   this  situation, the object for appointment on compassionate ground has  not been considered by the respondents.    8. Taking note of release of 52 vacancies and position of the  petitioner at Sl. no. 43 in the merit­list in the year 2012,  I am of the  opinion   that   her   candidature   for   appointment   on   compassionate  ground has been illegally excluded from consideration. It is held that  the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.  Accordingly,   the   Officer   namely,   Col.   N.   M   Chandarana,  Commandant,  GREF   Centre,  Dighi  Camp,  Pune   is  directed  to  take  necessary   steps   for   compassionate   appointment   of   the   petitioner,  within a period of eight weeks.  9. The writ petition is allowed, with the above direction.          (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)      Amit/