Dismissed

Mr R Ramakrishnan v. the Defence Secretary

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021WP/10909/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an order dismissing a belated compassionate appointment application and direct fresh consideration. The Court held application was made after 32 years, negating financial destitution, and dismissed the petition but expunged admitted adverse remarks.

What did the court decide?

The original application for compassionate appointment was disallowed; impugned order quashed to the extent of specific adverse observations which are expunged.

Mr R Ramakrishnan Vs the Defence Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.10909 OF 2019 [S-CAT]

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. R. RAMAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. MR. A. RAGHAVAN R/AT AJU NIVAS, AVANAVU ROAD, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 545.

¶11

PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NUMBER.A005, VENKITADRI PALMGROVES, MANJUNATH NAGAR, SEEGEHALLI VIRGONAGAR P.O. BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶12

MS. CHITRA .R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶13

D/O. MR. R. RAMAKRISHNAN, R/AT FLAT NO.A005, VENKATADRI PALMGROVES, MANJUNATH NAGAR, SEEGEHALLI VIRGONAGAR P.O. BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI ANIYAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEFENCE SECRETARY UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI - 110 066.

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE, 99A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶20

ARMY WELFARE PLACEMENT ORGANISATION, AGS BRANCH / CW DTE, INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), WEST BLOCK-III, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 096. ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC (THROUGH V/C))

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.170/00590 & 591/2017 DATED 23.10.2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THIS PETITION; AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 31.01.2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The legality and correctness of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) dated 23.10.2018 passed in Original Application No.170/00590-00591/2017, is called in question in this writ petition.

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

The petitioners are father and daughter

¶28

respectively. An application was made for considering the case of petitioner No.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that petitioner No.1−father of petitioner No.2−had been discharged from service in the year 1984 on account of disablement (20 per cent) and subsequently, had sustained 100 per cent disablement on account of the injuries sustained by him while in service. Since, the application made by the petitioners was not considered, an Original Application was filed before the Tribunal seeking consideration of the said application. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has dismissed the original application. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioners and learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

¶31

Petitioners' counsel contended that all that the

¶32

petitioners herein sought was a consideration of the

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal could have issued a direction in that regard to the respondents. Instead, the Tribunal has dismissed the application and has passed certain remarks which adversely affect the petitioners. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the following passages in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order, which are extracted as under:

¶35

"5. ....... It also has come out through the respondents that the 2^nd applicant is a married woman and therefore, under the law in force, not dependent on her father any more for her sustenance. She is apparently, according to her, well-qualified, married and in a position to find employment. ..........."

¶36

x x x

¶37

At this point of time there was a discussion about the quantum of cost. We note at this point that Applicant No.2 was born in 1986. We do not want to say anything more about the disability of Applicant No.1 who had apparently suffered a debilitating injury in 1983 but yet the Applicant No.2 was born in 1986. ........."

¶38

-: 5 :-

¶39

He submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioners.

¶40

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that petitioner No.1 was discharged from service in the year 1984. The application for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds was made after three decades, in the year 2016. This itself shows that the family was able to pull on all these years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, fairly submitted that appropriate order may be made on the incriminating observations of the Tribunal in the impugned order. He further submitted that no direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate basis.

¶42

-: 6 :-

¶43

Taking note of the respective submissions, we

¶44

find that the dismissal of the application is just and proper as the application seeking appointment on compassionate basis has been made 32 years after respondent No.1 was discharged from the Armed Forces after sustaining injuries during the course of service.

¶45

In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Shashi Kumar, [(2019) 3 SCC 653] , paragraph No.21 is extracted as under for immediate reference:

¶46

"21. The decision in Govind Prakash

¶47

Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal

¶48

Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra ) have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the

¶49

-: 7 :-

¶50

following extract, ( Umesh Kumar Nagpal case, SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) :

¶51

“2. ...... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post

¶52

-: 8 :-

¶53

much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule

¶54

-: 9 :-

¶55

made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

¶56

Having regard to the aforesaid observations of the

¶57

Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the application for compassionate appointment was made three decades after the discharge of petitioner No.1. This would clearly imply that the family of petitioner No.1 has been able to get on in life despite loss of employment. Hence, no direction could be issued for consideration of the application for compassionate appointment belatedly.

¶58

However, we find, while dismissing the application, the Tribunal ought not to have made the observations, as in paragraph No.5, line Nos.8 to 11 and in paragraph No.6, line Nos.1 to 5, which are extracted above.

¶59

The same stand expunged .

¶60

-: 10 :-

¶61