P.V. Neetha Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Chairman Cum Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others - Court Judgment

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of her request for appointment on compassionate grounds by relaxing the normal Rules of Recruitment.

2. The mother of the applicant, late Smt.K.K Preetha, while working as Telephone Operator with a service of 4 years 7 months and 26 days expired on 20.12.1992, leaving behind her unemployed husband and the applicant, who was only 3 = years old. The applicant belongs to scheduled caste community. She avers that she and her father are residing along with her father's brothers, in a small house situated in the kudikidappu land of 10 cents. At the time of the demise of her mother, the family had a liability of Rs.16,000/-, which was later cleared by applicant's father by taking a personal loan. The family received only Rs.8679/- by way of DCRG and encashment of leave. Balance in GPF, as per the nomination, was received by the sister of her mother. The amount of family pension she is receiving now is not at all sufficient for the survival of her family. The applicant states that as soon as she became major, Annexure A-3 application dated 31.05.2007 was submitted, seeking assistance by way of appointment in the respondents' Department. This was followed by a detailed Annexure A-4 representation by her and Annexure A-5 representation by her father. He had explained the reasons for his inability to take up the job and he also expressed his unconditional consent for giving employment to the applicant. As no response was forthcoming for long time, they enquired with the office of the respondents. Thereafter, they received Annexures A-5 and A-6 order turning down the request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant immediately submitted Annexure A-7 representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Telecommunication and Information Technology, New Delhi and Annexure A-8 to R-2. The applicant contends that the calculation of points as per the weightage point system is erroneous as she has not been rightly awarded the points. She states that she should have been given 25 points for dependent's weightage, 20 weightage points for basic family pension, 15 weightage points for left out service, 10 weightage points for terminal  benefits, 10 weightage points for accommodation and 20 weightage points for monthly income. Had the respondents awarded her points in the above mentioned manner, she would have got 80 weightage points. Instead the respondents have awarded 20 negative points for monthly income and 35 negative points for belated submission of application. In the result, she got only 25 net points and her application was not forwarded to R1, i.e; BSNL Corporate office for placing before the High Power Committee. The applicant contends that such action on the part of the respondents is highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondents contested the Original Application and filed reply statement. They submitted that at the time of seeking employment assistance in the year 2007, the husband of the applicant was aged 55 years and the applicant was 18 years old. According to them the family was waiting for the daughter to become major to seek a job on compassionate grounds. The applicant's father had given certain reasons in his representation for not applying for a job on relaxation of Recruitment Rules. Hence according to the respondents it is crystal clear that the family had some dependable means of income and they could survive for many years without getting employment assistance from the respondent department. The applicant's father had mentioned in his representation that he is a patient of Tuberculosis and Hyper Tension. The respondents produced R-1(d) to show that he is suffering from the disease since March 2007 only. According to the respondents, had the father of the applicant applied for a job assistance he would have been appointed promptly. They submitted that as per the calculation for awarding points under weightage points system, the total points come only to 25 and hence her case was not forwarded to BSNL Corporate Office. They contended that negative points have to be given necessarily for additional income in the family and for belated submission of request. Therefore, 20 negative points have been allotted for additional income of the family and 35 negative points for belated submission of application.

4. The respondents relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasis that the case of the applicant does not merit consideration.

"1. Auditor General of India and others Vs. G.Ananta Rajeswara Rao (1994) 1 SCC 192: It was held that appointment on ground of descent clearly violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution but if immediate financial assistance is required by the family such immediate appointment can be given when there is no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the breadwinner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family.

2. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others (JT 1994(3) SC 525) : "Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate grounds. 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. Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased/medically retired government servant is legally impermissible."

3. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mrs.Asha Ramachandra Amberkar and other (JT 1994(2) S.C.183) "The High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate grounds but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such appointment."

Therefore, in the light of the above settled law, the respondents submitted that the hardship of the dependant does not entitle him to compassionate appointment de-hors the scheme or statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration and in this particular case, the dependants of the deceased employee were not left without any means of livelihood.

5. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala while disposing of a bunch of Original Petitions (CAT) Nos.458,828, 841, 855 and 883 of 2010 and 325 and 360 of 2011 disagreed with the findings in WP(C) No.36025/2009 wherein this Tribunal's direction in O.A No.896/2009 and 4 other Original Applicants to BSNL to consider the case of the applicants as per the 1998 scheme in force, was upheld, by referring the case to the full bench. The following observation was made by the Hon'ble High Court.

"11. For one thing, it is the settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a regular method of recruitment. There is no vested right in any person to claim compassionate appointment. Provision for compassionate appointment is a legitimate device founded on compassion and therefore on essentiality, whereby the employer extends a helping hand to provide succor to the unfortunate dependents of an employee who dies in harness. When such exercise relates to public employment governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, such extension of succor is essentially one that reduces the source of employment for the open market candidates legitimately meeting with expectation to enter public service. That is why, it has been laid as law that such a measure of help shall be extended only to the really needy."

6. Arguments were heard and documents perused.

7. It is not in dispute that the family could survive for the past 20 years without assistance, by way of a job, from the respondent department. No doubt, the family got very meagre terminal benefits as the late employee had less than 5 years of service.

However the daughter is in receipt of family pension. The father of the applicant chose not apply for a job on relaxation of the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the respondents that the family might have some source of income, which enabled the husband of late Smt. K.K Preetha to get the applicant educated. During hearing, it was submitted that the applicant has finished her B.Com. It is  obvious that the family waited for the daughter to complete 18 years of age to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds now. A perusal of calculation of points under the weightage point system at Annexure R-1((e) shows that the applicant has been awarded 10 points as the dependant unmarried daughter, another 15 points for the left out service of the late employee and 20 points for family pension. Since the applicant is a part of a joint family of her father and is not residing in a rented house, no point was awarded for not possessing own house. However, 35 negative points are granted for belated submission of the request after a lapse of 14 years of the expiry of the late employee for job assistance. I do not find anything erroneous in the calculation of points under the weightage point system. The applicant is the only dependant and being a graduate is capable of getting a job on her own merit and efforts. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.