The court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It upheld the department's rejection, finding the family was not penurious due to the respondent's son's government job, mother's pension, and terminal benefits, despite disputed claims about expenditure and separate residence.
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.
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1923/2003
Shaitan Bhambi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER :: 2.4.2007
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, for the respondents.
By this petition for writ the petitioner has claimed for appointment on compassionate grounds being son of late Sh. Ratanlal Bhambi who died while in service on 20.1.1999. The respondents under the communication dated 3.9.2002 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the count that the elder brother of the petitioner is working as Teacher in Government School and at the relevant time was getting salary of Rs.6936/-. Beside that, mother of the petitioner is getting family pension in tune of Rs.2973/- per month and she also received terminal benefits in a tune of Rs.2,43,454/-. The family is having its own house and no major liability was required to be discharged.
While giving challenge to the decision of the respondents it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that his elder brother is admittedly residing separately and whatever amount paid as terminal benefits has already been spent in treatment of his father. It is emphasized by counsel for the petitioner that the amount paid as terminal benefits cannot be taken into consideration while dealing with a case for grant of
2
appointment on compassionate grounds.
In reply to the writ petition while defending the decision for not extending appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds it is contended on behalf of respondents that a conscious decision was taken while taking into consideration all relevant facts and the circumstances necessary to determine economic conditions of a family. The department, on basis of the material available, reached at a definite conclusion that the condition of the family is not penurious.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The determination of penurious condition of a family depends upon various factors and those too differ from case to case and facts to facts. In the instant matter the respondents have examined case of the petitioner and found that the elder brother of the petitioner is in government employment, the family is having its own house and mother of the petitioner is getting family pension. The family also received terminal benefits in a tune of Rs.2,43,454/-. No major liability exists now to be discharged by the family.
I do not find any error with the decision of the respondents in the circumstances as stated above. In view of it, this petition for writ is having no merit, and the same, therefore, is dismissed.
3
(GOVIND MATHUR),J.
J.Goyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds given the family's existing income and assets.
Whether the inclusion of terminal benefits and family pension was an error in assessing the family's penurious condition.
Shaitan Bhambi
Union of India
Govind Mathur
Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
