Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th July, 2011 WP(C) No.22673/2005
SHAKUNTLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ram Niwas, Advocate.
Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) CM No.9813/2011 Allowed. CM No.9814/2011 Delay in filing CM No.9812/2011 is condoned. CM No.9812/2011
1. Application seeking restoration of the writ petition is allowed upon the condition that the writ petition would be heard today itself.
2. Learned counsel concedes as afore-noted.
3. The application is allowed. 2011:DHC:3481-DB
1. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.2437/2004 filed by the petitioner.
2. Upon the death of her husband on 24.9.2000, petitioner sought compassionate appointment which was denied.
3. It may be noted that only 5% vacancies have to be allocated towards compassionate appointment.
4. Petitioner had filed the application seeking compassionate appointment on 25.10.2000.
5. As held by the Tribunal, and it being a finding of fact, we accept the same for the reason nothing has been shown to us that the finding is incorrect; the finding being that since 1995, no vacancy was available under compassionate appointment quota except one which arose in 1998 and thereafter one vacancy arose in the year 2002.
6. Screening committee met on 11.7.2003 and considered various applicants. One Smt.Rama, respondent No.5 who had also sought compassionate appointment was found to be the most deserving and hence was offered a job. Since vacancy pertaining to the year 1998 had already been filled up, vacancy which arose on 2002 was to be filled.
7. The comparative financial position of the petitioner and Smt.Rama as indicated by the Tribunal may be noted. It is as under:-
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Name DCRG CGEIS GPF Leave Family LIC Policy │ │ No. Encash Pension │ │ ment │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 Smt. 99,828/- 38,482/- 37,032/- 79,585/- 2950/- 60,000/- │ │ Shakuntla │ │ W/o Late │ │ WP(C) 22673/2005 Page 2 of 3 │ │ 2011:DHC:3481-DB │ │ Sh.Samay │ │ Chand │ │ (Sr.No.19) │ │ 2 Smt.Rama 52,920/- 17,405/- 17,325/- Nil 1275/- Nil │ │ w/o Late │ │ Sh.Sanjay │ │ Kumar │ │ (Sr.No.26) │ │ 8. It is apparent that Smt.Rama is a more deserving candidate. │ │ 9. The Tribunal has noted that as per DOP&T OM dated │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
10. The question of the petitioner staking any claim does not arise.
11. Attempt to question the 3 years’ maximum period prescribed under OM dated 5.5.2003 is negated by us for the simple reason the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to a family which finds itself in penury on account of sudden and untimely death of the sole bread earner. As time passes by, the family is expected to find succor elsewhere.
12. We conclude by holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of employment and people must compete with the rest. It, being an exception to the rule, must be construed strictly.
13. We dismiss the writ petition but without imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SUNIL GAUR, J. JULY 13, 2011 dk