Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)11000/2015
Judgmentdated15*''September,2016 GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL TARRITORY OF DELITI& ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC and Mr.R.I.
Iyer,Adv.
; ^ i -x .j?
•2.,'
'
'F r , S -.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA | f I G.S.SISTANL MiORAD I
JUDGMENT
1. With the cohsentd£:lhe>bounsel roh[4];neTarMhs^#e:vSet;down the present writpetition fd^fihdFSeaHng^a^ '
2. Present writ petition%ha^b,behTiled^uhder Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India seeking a'direction to set aside the order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Central Administrative TribunaT(hereinafter referred to as 'the TribunaV)by which OA No.1960/2013 filed by the respondents herein was allowed by the Tribunal and the petitioners herein were directed to grant a suitable appointment to respondent no.l on compassionate grounds and if petitioner no.4. Director, Delhi Fire Sentice did not have any suitable vacancy available with it, it would appoint respondent no.l in any other office under the Government of NCT ofDelhi/petitioner no.l. W.P. (C).11000/2015 Page 1 of[9] 2016:DHC:8787-DB \(p
3. Some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition and as noticed by the Tribunal, are that Sh.Daljit Singh Dhillon, husband of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.l, was working as a Driver with Delhi Fire Service. He expired in harness as far back as on 30.7.1991 after rendering twenty seven years of service. Thereafter his son sought appointment on compassionate grounds. Admittedly, the petitioners considered his request favourably but he was not found eligible for such appointment as he was short of height by one centimetre and relaxation was not considered permissibl&f.by^f^conc§T^d®^authorities. The son ofthe 4 1 I ^\ deceased then nidde|a^fiepre'senfationHblThe^X^^^ of Delhi. Hisidasb^'was was conducted, however,th4ClliefSecrelaM^fej*fdyi^fe\equestonfthd^rou thathis I imm: f family ha^d received Rs.5^|ppi||asvterminal benefits a|d further that Cfw.' 1 fv f •«. j-r< • "■ a respondent no.2 was receiving|ppnsibn at the rate of ^s.1,798/-, per Sj - rt. ' if month. Ifhereafter, respbhdehf<4&l?li, being the daughter of the deceased, liade uAffcsbntation fpp.idpp^intinent on> compassionate grounds, whi(lft^%as5fejectedby the respphd.e^S|^^lii^hledto the filing ^ of the first OA be%rin'g%5&92^/f#9§fT^ was disposed ofby the Tribunal on 18.7.2000*withimsdireStm that the petitioners would communicate to the respondents the decision on her representation. It was also directed that the petitioners would make payment of dues to the respondents, subject to the conditions laid down in the relevant rules and regulations which would be complied with by the respondents. Pursuant to the directions passed by the Tribunal in OA 929/1999, the request of respondent no.l herein was considered and rejected by the petitioners, which led to the filing of a second OA No.1147/2002. The said OA was also disposed of by the Tribunal on W.P.(C).1I000/201S 20.9.2002 with the direction to the petitioners herein to consider the request ofrespondent no.l for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh. The request of respondent no.l was again rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 5.12.2002, which led to the filing of the third OA bearing No.15/2003 by respondent no.l. The Tribunal, vide order dated 02.01.2004, again set aside the order passed by the petitioners with a direction to the petitioners to examine the case of respondent no.1 in the light ofterminal benefits without adhering the A- time limit in terms of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 5.9.2003. Relevant paras ofthe oi^defdated 02.0l":2004.read as under: s t oT a S O
8. Learned couns.elimrappUcants Sh. S.K. Gupta states that "^claim of^p^^^^^^j^pj^pc^sionate appointment was, %inter dlia^,ph^th^^.ground^ wM'kvewcted as the claim was cp fSg^~»e/as the Tribunal whileH^uingyiirtepti^^ tl^nhefeis no delay in the ^ claM<b^is^^tl!ii^epnspf^Sjfsfpiedthathavingregardto the meagFe^pna^etahbpm^Js^'dccorded to thefamily there cannot be apresumption thatfamily has adequate means if survivedforsuch longyears. It is also stated bySh. Gupta that retiral benefits cannot be the sole criteria for adjudging thefamily as indigent.
9. As regard other assets as applicants had no ancestral property or any house owned by them the case is most deserving and the consideration has not been done in accordance with rules and instructions.
10. On the other hand, respondents counsel Sh. Vijay Pandita vehemently opposed the contentions and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Haryana State Electricity W.P.(C).11000/2015 Page30/9 Board and Anr. v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332 contends that the purpose ofcompassionate appointment is to tide over thefamilyfrom the suddenfinancial crises and the delay in according compassionate appointment cannot be countenanced. This has raised a presumption as to survival of thefamily and a presumption that the family is notdeserving.
11. J-
12. On merits as well it is stated that the claim ofapplicants has been meticulously considered in the light of the decision of the Tribunal and as vacancies as per notification or DOPT CM of1999 are restricted to 5% quota claim of applicants duly considered was not acceded to. / hayi car&fuilf ' consideredhhe,^ri\'al contentions of the /) V p " 4-TV- P0rti0>,aflapej^u^M^i^e m^qteridhopfredqyd. Atthe outset. AC oush the cbmpMsMBfjfrietdppointmeht chnnot be claimed <£VV A '■ as^a,matter li Ubutktnexrii Mfisht to considek in accordance wfth theprincmte^fidWidMvn andpoliev^cannot be denied. Wrvr"''" Th
13. e Tribunal WfriWiM^Ssins ofthe claim ofapplicants in OA-1147/2002 %rusf}M aside andrejectedike contentions ofrespondents,as^to MMbelatedclaim andahcordinslv reexamination was fr rderjejdf% A Am. ■ 'I'LsW T^e^fj^i^f cWnfr&WMhat^dp^i^pm^nt is to tide over fihUn^fdiCr^s^^anfm^a dfriost^deservingfamily left i Rs.58,OOO/-^^^^'defr^0ffetifdl benefits andpension of n penu^^x^^eepfrg'^ifi^ie^fM^ meagre amount of Rs.20007- thefamily is to be treated as indigent and most deserving. As per DOPT OM dated 5.5.2003 in such a case on review the name can be further considered for three years in most deserving cases.
14. From the order passedI fi nd that not only other factors but the delay in accordofcompassionate appointment had weighedin the mindofthe respondents to reject the claim, which is not consistent with the directions issued by the Tribunal.
15. On perusal of the Screening Committee's MinutesI find that the delay in accord of compassionate appointment W.P.(C).l1000/2015 Page 4 of[9] i[3] weighed heavily in the mind ofthe competentauthority on thepresumption that thefamily had managedforso many years is adequate proof of dependable means of subsistence is based on presumption, as apartfrom the meagre amount nothing has been shown or established that the family has dependable means. The case of applicants was under consideration till 2002 and having been arbitrarily rejected was sent for re-examination. Merely because there has been time lapse would not be a naturalpresumption as to adequacy ofsubsistence.
16. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. V Respondents^MKec^^directed^. to examine the case of applicants^in theflisdft ofMhe'^financial benefits, without adhennsrtd.Mh^^timejaM PORT DM dated
5. S^2.093yBy passifP^W^reasoned^andidkailed order within M vBrihd ofhvMMohihsffkdm the date of'receipt ofa copy iofMsordemW^i^ % 'I
4. The case ©frespondent no considered and rejected by the, fji.' 11 N petitioner! vide order dalfei^ll^^&004. Thereafteil respondents I.. approached the EulDlicj[5],'Grreyahcer^lConiniission iMgain seeking
V. 'vr. <,'U 'v; ?"//.f/ ^ ^ reconsideration iiain, vide order dated 17T[2].26l^Xf®j^ct8difeth^^reqdes^^ df^tlie<^tespondents. The respondents chaIleh|e4^the^.sjL|or,est^^ by filing OA the No.1960/2013 citing their pitiable condition ofrespondent no.l,who is living with respondent no.2,had become 42 years ofage and she could not be married on account of extreme poverty. It was also stated that the respondents have no source of livelihood; the younger brother of respondent no.1,Sh.Kulwaran Jeet Singh,suffered a brain haemorrhage and the family had to spend a considerable amount on his treatment. The younger brother has also expired. Further, they have no place to reside. The said OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 6.2.2015,which led to the filing ofthe present petition. W.P. (C).11000/2015 Page5of[9]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and unfair. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Tribunal is not empowered to direct the Government to grant appointment on compassionate grounds and at best can direct the petitioners to consider the claim of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the intent and purpose of the scheme for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds is only to relieve the family of the deceased employe,^^dra'financial adstto It has further been AUf i.O..,. urged before usJHat|ho,appointment on^cornpassipnate ground to the family membj§f§,%|^tiie de^^pi^tolQyee is^npt alright and his/her request can ohly be conMq(^i^"^#^6rits as pdfisthe extant rules. ii 'ft Counsel further contends thaf^thej|lffiibunal has failed to appreciate that If • ' \ a -4'"'^I 11^/ 1'^ once an appointmenton con:i|3assibnate grounds is grantep to one ofthe '%■ ii-j' Ii)a /I family members of the de^^j^j^dgi^yee and the said^fnember either %, 4^''% rl.N 1% ^4^ «*Ej| ^ accepts or %ejects/Thd>,pffer;kthe-issW,M^ of/appointment on compassionateljgfoj&^^^nds on such date^fmcdeptahce or rejection.It is further contenafed^-'by^thd?GounseT«ttffat?'^fEe'/husband/father of the respondents died as far bacL^assinfthe^year 1991 and over the passage of time the respondents have been able to manage themselves which shows that the respondents are financially stable. Thus, there are no ground for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that having regard to the acute financial conditions of the respondents, without this case being treated as a precedent, the Court should not interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. On 26.8.2016, we had asked the learned counsel for the respondents as W.P.(C).l1000/2015 Page 6 of[9] %> n to whether the respondents are being supported by their son/brother, Sh.Amrik Singh. Mr.Gupta has filed an affidavit specifically stating that Sh.Amrik Singh,elder brother ofrespondent no.l,has deserted the respondents; he is living at Hoshiyarpur, Punjab, and he is not supporting the respondents. The younger brother, Sh.Kulwaran Jeet Singh Dhillon,has expired on 4.7.2015 and the respondents have taken shelter in the house of one, Ravinder Singh, who is known to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents additionally submits that the other married daughters oL^resi^n^ent„jia2^ar%also not supporting the respondents. Iti# alsoVdhfended that^a^s- far, as:4he family pension, \,, which is bein'g rdcpved isfjoncemed,the same is 9. not sufficidht.t^ake on a^fmi^ofthe adverse circumstances,"the respon'deWsihddM^ borrow money and out of the I... TPMW.. pension which is being received^Isiiibstantial amount is being deducted 5 y" ft I towardsre|)aymentofloaniK^i|^^,^|^^\ // Counsel forkespondenBn0i'2"''also'>bontehds4hat^respondent no.2 is now approximately^J[4]:%ears%of age and sjae js^ssuffermg from various ailments while thlfrpsjiphdlhtf^np;. They have no source oflivelihood except for tM^famidyapension being received by them. It has also been brought on record that on account of the indigent circumstances ofthe respondents,respondent no.2 has not been able to marry of respondent no.l (daughter) and respondent no.l is still residing with respondent no.2.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The facts ofthis case are not in dispute. Afterthe death ofthe father/husband ofthe respondents,the elder son ofrespondent on.[2] applied for appointment on compassionate fy.P.(C).11000/2015 Page 7of[9] grounds,however,his request was accepted but he could not be granted appointment as he was short of height by one centimetre. Thereafter time and again his request was reconsidered and rejected. Later, respondent no.l applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, however, her request has all along been rejected on different grounds. The Tribunal in the impugned order, after examining the law and also the sequence of events allowed OA No.1960/2013 primarily on the ground that at the first instance the petitioner themselves have considered the case ofrespondent no.l for compassionate appointment favourably and thereafter^ith^the,"palfage of time, every time the I\ [] ff% matter was remanded#'baek,*it was rejected on different grounds. The Tribunal was#lsdwersuadefli»td5MlbM'thp OA ahdJslued a direction to grant a suita^eTappoin^^^M^^i^pLto consid||atif.n the pitiable H condition ofthe respondentsa#M#l:¥#,,
11. While,th|reisnoquarrelvs|t^.|i||)]|)positionoflaw,v||iichissought tobeurgedbyMr.Narayan^j'^A^^^toselforthepetitioner,however, the peculiarlfacts stiw^matjthe respohdents not only losttheir fathef/husband%utthey also lojstnheir^younger son/brother,on account of braih%al'm6lihlgeH'Thejl0my^sourc of income of the respondents is the family pehsi0n^?i?GfTrfaKe matters worse,due to their pitiable condition, the respondents have borrowed money and substantial part ofthe family pension is being deducted in repaying the loan. Further,respondent no.2 is approximately 74 years ofage and is suffering from various ailments. Due to indigent circumstances, respondent no.2 has not been able to marry of respondent no.l and respondent no.1 is residing with respondent no.2 and all the siblings of respondentno.1 have deserted the respondents.
12. Having regard to the peculiar facts ofthis case and as an exceptional W.P.(C).l1000/2015 Page8of[9] circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal,however, we make it clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent and shall be deemed as an order passed in the facts and circumstances ofthe case.
13. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. We hope that the order passed by the Tribunal will be complied with by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. CM APPL.28363/2015
14. Application stands dismissed in view ofthe order passed in the writ petition. f a 1^!, V, 3..v. -r: <^1.. i II \ Hji V H.t SEPTEMBER 15, 2016,^'1%;fi'-s y. N GSS.SISTANI,J r.v ' V" ' V f V -if, b,"", J' lif msr......., ■ V^''. "i "u •-1 Vt.MEHTA,J