The High Court in a writ petition sought appointment of an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on compassionate grounds. The court rejected the petition, citing adequate retirement benefits and precedent that compassionate appointments address financial crisis rather than provide employment.
Petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4708 OF 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of :
coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and Registrar Orders:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.K. Babu Rajan for the Petitioner.
Mrs.N.V. Masurkar for the Respondents.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
MRS. R.S. DALVI, JJ.
DATE : 12TH JULY 2005
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Rajan for the
Petitioner. Mrs.Masurkar appears for
the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner herein is a son
of former employee in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. His father was invalidated
on medical ground. The Petitioner was
taken up for training so that he could
be absorbed on a compassionate basis.
Subsequently, on investigation, the
Respondents found that the Petitioner
had agricultural income which was apart
from family pension which his father
was going to receive and other terminal
benefits. The family pension was
Rs.4,711/- and terminal benefits were
over Rs.2,00,000/-. In these
circumstances, the Respondents passed
an order on 6th April 2001 rejecting
the request of the Petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground.
3. Mr.Rajan for the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner was being
given training. He submitted that the
family of the Petitioner’s father is a
large family with so many dependants.
He further drew our attention to an
earlier decision which stated that
appointments prior to 18th November
2001 will not be reopened. However, in
the present case, we do not find any
such appointment having been made prior
to that date and whatever difficulties
the Petitioner’s family is having, the
fact remains that adequate retirement
benefits as per the law are being
provided to his father. Mr.Rajan has
referred us to a judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana reported in 1994
SCC (L&S) 930. The judgment in fact
states that object of compassionate
appointment is to enable the penurious
family of the deceased employee to tide
over the sudden financial crisis and
not to provide employment. This being
the position, there is no substance in
the petition. Petition is rejected.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(MRS. R.S. DALVI, J.)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of HaryanaReferred¶13
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 · Who else cites this
Petitioner
Respondents
H.L. GOKHALE
MRS. R.S. DALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court