Om Prakash VII ORDER
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
a) To issue order and direction and to quash the impugned order dated 14.7.2020 passed by DRM, Allahabad (Annexure No. A-1).
b) To issue order and direction to the respondent No. 2 for consider the applicant for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits, or to pass such other and further orders or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
c) To issue award cost and compensation in favour of the applicant.
2. The case in brief as unfolded in the O.A. is that applicant is the adopted son of Smt. Dhanpati Devi, as per registered adoption deed dated 20.10.2011. Smt. Dhanpati Devi, who was Group D Safai Karmchari under the Chief Health Inspector, Railway, Allahabad died on 11.12.2011, while in service. Tehsildar Sadar, Allahabad had issued family register of late Dhanpati Devi, by which she has left one daughter and one (married ) son as recorded in the family of the deceased employee. Applicant has passed the Senior Secondary School Examination in the year 2016, in which the name of mother of the applicant clearly recorded as Smt. Dhanpati Devi. Applicant was minor at the time of death of his mother. Respondents have paid the retiral dues and also granted family pension w.e.f. 12.12.2011 in favour of the applicant, as per registered adoption deed. He is receiving pension @ 14,087/- per month from the respondents. Applicant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 19.8.2016, when he attained majority but the respondent No. 3 has rejected the case of the applicant for granting compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel for respondents have filed counter reply, through which it is stated that the name of the applicant is not appearing in any paper of the record. i.e. pass, medical card of the deceased. The adoption deed was not presented before the Railway Administration by late Smt. Dhanpati Devi during her life time and has been presented after a lapse of six years and it has not been executed properly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that Smt. Dhanpati Devi has left behind one married daughter Smt. Shanti Devi, who is living with her husband and the applicant is the biological son of Smt. Shanti Devi and Shri Ram Bahadur, who was allegedly adopted by Smt. Dhanpati Devi on 20.10.2011, which is mere one month and twenty one days before the death of the employees due to her critical illness. Hence the adoption taken by Smt. Dhanpati Devi is illegal, invalid and not in conformity with the provisions of Section 11 (vi) and 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, because the applicant is still residing in his original family. In addition to that, it is also stated that applicant has already received retiral benefits of Rs. 7,43,618/- of late Smt. Dhanpati Devi. Apart from the above, applicant is also getting family pension of Rs. 15,667/- per month from the Railways.
4. Heard Shri Syed Mushfiq Ali, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the adopted son of the deceased employee who died during service. Thereafter, the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the authority concerned on 08.12.2017. The applicant approached before this Court through O.A./186/2018 (page 55) and the same was allowed directing the respondents to decide afresh in light of the observation recorded in the aforesaid O.A. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that impugned order was passed by the authority concerned on the same fashion. Observations recorded by the Bench in the aforesaid O.A. have not been considered. Referring to para 4 of the order dated 14.07.2020 it was further argued that once the department is providing the benefit of monthly pension to the applicant the dispute raised regarding the adoption deed is not valid.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the penultimate para of the impugned order and further argued that ground taken to reject the prayer of the applicant is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Validity of the adoption deed has already been decided in the O.A. filed by the applicant. Thus, prayer was made to allow the application and to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit, argued that the applicant is still living along with his biological parents and at no point of time the deceased employee had given any information regarding the adoption deed. There is no further liability upon the applicant. He has received the due amount on the death of the deceased employee. Thus, department has rightly rejected the prayer of the applicant for compassionate appointment. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the impugned order as well as the order passed in O.A./942/2013 by this Bench on 19.07.2019 and further argued that appointment cannot be given on compassionate grounds to the applicant and O.A. is not liable to be allowed.
8. Opposing the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant argued that grounds taken in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the applicant is not acceptable. Adoption deed is a registered document and the applicant was adopted during the lifetime of the deceased. Thus, prayer was made to allow the application.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.
10. As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.
11. It is also settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis.
12. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in MANU/SC/0701/1994 : JT 1994 (3) SC 525, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been observed as under:-
"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 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."
13. Apex Court in the case of State of Chhatisgarh Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in MANU/SC/1106/2009 : (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 600, has observed that the "Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of inheritance."
14. In the case of State of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in MANU/SC/3077/2006 : (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766, it is observed that "Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need for compassionate appointment." Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
15. In the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar reported in MANU/SC/1192/2010 : (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 661, the Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated that "Compassionate Appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule, that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible person to participate in the selection process."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court once again in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Shashank Goswami and another reported in MANU/SC/0482/2012 : AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2294 has been pleased to observe that "Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is based on the premises that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly such a claim cannot be upheld on the touch stone of Article 14 or 16 of Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service."
17. In the instant case, the deceased employee Smt. Dhanpati Devi had adopted the applicant on 20.10.2011 from her daughter Smt. Shanti Devi and son-in-law just before one month and twenty one days before her death. She had not given information about the adoption to the department during her life time. Applicant in para 4.4. of the O.A. has disclosed wrong facts that Smt. Dhanpati Devi has left one daughter and (married) one son as recorded in the family of the deceased employee, whereas from perusal of record, it appears that Smt. Dhanpati Devi had left only one married daughter (Smt. Shanti Devi who is residing with her husband and the applicant of the present O.A., who was son of Smt. Shanti Devi, was adopted by Smt. Dhanpati Devi, just few months before her death. Applicant has received retiral dues of the deceased amounting to Rs. 743618/- and also getting family pension of Rs. 15697/- per month. At the time of death of deceased i.e. on 11.12.2011, applicant was minor. When he became major, he moved application for compassionate appointment on 19.8.2016 i.e. 5 years after the death of Smt. Dhanpati Devi. There is no other dependency in the family of the deceased employee except the present applicant. Substantial period (More than 10 years) is over after the death of the deceased. It appears that respondents have rightly observed that there is no financial crises to the family. Grant of payment of family pension to the applicant will not be sufficient to give him compassionate appointment. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, although the applicant had approached earlier to this Tribunal for compassionate appointment and same was allowed by the Tribunal, directing the respondents to decide the matter afresh, the grounds taken in the present O.A. lacks merit.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, O.A. is not liable to be allowed and is accordingly dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.