1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to file rejoinder-affidavit in this writ petition which seeks compassionate appointment. Counteraffidavit was filed way back on 8th October, 2013, and therefore, there is no ground for grant of time to file rejoinder-affidavit in a case such as the present and more so in view of the facts which have come out from the counter-affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner states that his mother was not well in the month of November,2013 however when queried whether he 2013:DHC:6361 appeared in Courts he says „Yes‟. Even assuming I take the statement that counsel‟s mother was not well in November 2013, and therefore he could not prepare the case, today is 10th December and surely more than enough number of days were available for counsel for the petitioner to prepare his case. I am of the opinion therefore adjournment prayed for is not justified and in fact the adjournment which is sought is only a strategic adjournment which is frowned upon by Courts.
2. The facts as stated in the writ petition shows that father of the petitioner when he expired on 4.1.2010, he only had about 10 months of service left with the respondent no.1-University i.e he had served out almost the entire term of his employment. Preliminary submissions no.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 of the counter-affidavit show that the mother of the petitioner with whom the petitioner is living got terminal benefits of a substantial amount of Rs.7,68,383/- on the death of the father of the petitioner. Not only that, petitioner‟s mother in the year 2010 was getting a pension of about Rs.8,000/- per month and as of date is getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. In fact, the pension is going to be revised upwards on account of refixation of pay, by grant of benefits under the 6th Pay Commission Report. The counter-affidavit also shows that petitioner is only 5th class pass and being already of 37 years cannot get the appointment because eligibility criteria is not met for appointment of the petitioner whether as a Group „C‟ or Group „D‟ or lowest post employee in the respondent no.1-University. Also, the intention of grant of compassionate appointment is to prevent penury and in the present case I do not find that there is any penury in the family of the petitioner as it has already received huge terminal benefits, besides the aspect that the mother of the petitioner is getting monthly pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month, with the same to be revised higher in terms of the 6th Pay Commission Report.
3. Paras 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 of the counter-affidavit are relevant and the same read as under:-
“1. The present petition is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has come to the Hon‟ble Court with unclean hands and has suppressed/distorted material facts. 2. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner can not be considered for compassionate employment for the following reasons. Each one of the following reasons, separately, disqualifies the petitioner completely. 3. The family of the deceased is not indigent and did not need assistance for relief from financial destitution because there was no financial destitution. They were not in penury. The family of the petitioner got terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 7,68,383/-. After deducting the society loan of Rs.89,849/- he still got Rs.6,78,534/-.In the year 2010 the widow of the deceased was getting a
pension of about Eight Thousand Rupees per month and as on today she is getting a pension of about Ten Thousand Rupees per month. It is submitted that at the time of death of the deceased he was getting an amount of Rs.8,421/- in his hand as Salary after deductions. It is further pertinent to mention here that the case of the deceased is also under consideration of Appropriate Authority of the University for refixation of his pay and other subsequential benefits to be payable to him under grant of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) under 6th Pay Commission. After grant of MACP the family pension of the deceased will also increase.
4. The widow of the deceased still gets free medical facilities under the health scheme applicable to the University i.e. World University Service (WUS). The medical facilities are being provided by WUS to the beneficiary i.e. widow of the deceased which includes OPD consultations and reimbursement etc. She is covered by direct payment hospitalization medical facility of the University of Delhi.
5. The date of superannuation of the deceased was 30.11.2010. He passed away on 4.1.2010, just a few months earlier than his superannuation and his salary earning from the University was to be lost in few months in any case. Therefore, there was no sudden financial crisis in the family. The children of the deceased were adults and able bodied capable of earning. There are other earning members in the family like petitioner‟s brother etc. The petitioner himself is earning. 6…….
7. The 37 year old class five pass petitioner is not eligible or suitable to be considered even the lowest grade posts, and even otherwise is not fit to be considered.
8. In the present case there was no penury, financial hardship or sudden crisis. It has been held by Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 and numerous other cases on the same line that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The object is not to give a member of such family a post. The appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. It has been pointed out that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute.
9. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It has been laid down in Union of India v. B. Kishore, (2011) 13 SCC 131 that the very purpose and object of compassionate employment is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependants of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
10. The petitioner‟s family received substantial terminal benefits and the widow of the deceased still gets free medical treatment and reimbursement under the health scheme applicable to the University (WUS). The terminal benefits received at the time of the death can be a consideration for seeing entitlement of Compassionate employment and it has been held so in Union Bank of India v. M.T.Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350; G.M.(D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary (2004) 7 SCC 271.”
4. Therefore, two basic requirements of seeking compassionate appointment are missing in this case and which are of non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as the petitioner is only 5th class pass and the fact that it cannot be said that there is such penury in the family of the petitioner that the petitioner should get compassionate appointment.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 10, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib