The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim made 12 years after the employee's death. The Court held that the family was not in financial penury and the delay precluded the remedy, upholding the Tribunal's order.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
CWP No.21626 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21626 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.11.2011
Smt. Jokhna Devi & another
... Petitioners
versus
Union of India & others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present : Mr. Rajneesh Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.
Permod Kohli, J.(Oral)
This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dismissing the OA filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.03.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that petitioner No.1 is the widow and petitioner No.2 is son of Late Ram Udhar, who was Poultry Attendant with respondent department. He died in harness on 27.06.1999. Petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment of her son Chander Parkash - petitioner No.2 vide application dated 11.08.1999. Claim of the petitioners was recommended for Group T3 post vide letter dated 30.06.2001, however, respondents rejected the claim vide letter dated
CWP No.21626 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
06.11.2003.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed OA No.1094/CH/2003. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2004. Order of the Tribunal was assailed before this Court in CWP No.1630-CAT of 2005. The claim of the petitioners was rejected under the government instructions dated 05.05.2003 wherein 5% posts were earmarked for compassionate appointment. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal and before this Court was that new Compassionate appointment policy has no application and it is only the scheme dated 09.10.1998, which was invogue at the time of death of the employee that governs the claim of the petitioners. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioners was required to be considered under the old scheme dated 09.10.1998. The contentions were accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2010. While rejecting the contentions of the respondents of placing a cap of 5% of total posts for compassionate appointment, respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. Judgment of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2003 was set aside and the matter remitted to respondents. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, respondents reconsidered the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment and again rejected the same vide order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure A-1).
We have carefully perused the order. The claim of petitioner No.2 has been considered under the old policy of 1998. The ground of rejection is primarily the financial status of the family. It has been noticed in the impugned order that the family is in receipt of family pension of Rs.3,374/- and has also received an amount of
CWP No.21626 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
Rs.2.5 lacs under various Welfare Schemes of the government such as Death Gratuity, Central Government Insurance Scheme and GPF etc. It has also been noticed that the deceased employee was drawing a gross salary of Rs.5,686/- p.m and after various deductions, the net salary received by the deceased employee was Rs.2,871/- whereas the family is receiving more than the amount received by the deceased employee.
The order dated 30.03.2011 was again challenged before the Tribunal, which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2011. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners and challenge to the aforesaid order passed by the respondents primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal was satisfied with the financial status of the family of the deceased and secondly, the Tribunal also noticed that it is about 12 years when the death of the deceased employee took place and the family has fairly survived during this period. It has been accordingly observed that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the compassionate appointment.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The very purpose of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee in penury to overcome their financial hardships. The object of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment to the member of the family of the deceased employee. The law has been settled in the judgment of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. Regarding delay in appointment, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2008(2) SCT 669 made following observations:
“ Furthermore, about 12 years have passed.
CWP No.21626 of 2011 (O&M)
-4-
Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. Appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this age.”
The financial status of the family noticed by the respondents in the order of the Tribunal is not disputed. The Tribunal has also rightly observed that after a period of 12 years, the compassionate appointment is not permissible. This principle has been accepted by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani's case (supra) wherein compassionate appointment after a period of 12 years has been declined.
In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Permod Kohli) Judge
November 22, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compassionate appointment is permissible when the death of the employee occurred 12 years ago and the family is not in penury.
Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not entertained after 12 years of death.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of HaryanaReferred¶25
Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra & othersReferred¶25
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2008(2) SCT 669
Mumtaz Yunus MulaniExplained¶30
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani's case
Smt. Jokhna Devi
Chander Parkash
Union of India
Permod Kohli
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
