Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate.
Through : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for GNCTD.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM No. 28511/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands allowed.
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 26th May, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) by which O.A. No. 2468/2015 filed by the petitioner herein seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. Mr. Mehrotra submits that the only ground for rejection as per the letter of rejection dated 31st December, 2014 is that the petitioner was “less deserving” as his case was not covered under the criteria of DoPT instructions and Standing Order No. 39/14. 2016:DHC:5626-DB
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has to support his step mother and her two children. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar,(2015) 7 SCC 412 that grant of family pension cannot be one of the ground to reject the appointment of the kin of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. Reliance is also placed on Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.,(2000) 6 SCC 493, where the Supreme Court has taken into consideration that the ground of family benefit scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself and returned the finding that the petitioner was having a property valuing Rs.24 lacs and an annual income of Rs.13,000/-. Counsel further submits that the share of the petitioner in the property valuing Rs. 24 lacs would only come to Rs. 4.80 Lacs and thus, it cannot be a ground to reject his application. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the petitioner visa-vis 147 other candidates who have been appointed on compassionate grounds and no reasons have been given in this regard.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Tribunal has not rejected the case of the petitioner either on the ground that the petitioner is receiving family pension or he is entitled to the benefit of family pension scheme. In this case, the Tribunal has rejected the OA after perusing the minutes of the meeting of Police Establishment Board. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Para 8 of the order of the Tribunal:-
4. Based on the comparison above, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was less deserving than other persons, who were more in need of financial assistance. The law with regard to compassionate appointment is well settled. There is no right to seek compassionate appointment. The aim and objective of the compassionate appointment is to help the family in distress and in need when a family member dies. In the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 481, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
5. In the present case, the request of the petitioner was examined by the Board. As per the direction of the Board, other applicants were found more deserving than the petitioner.
6. The ground of malafide has neither been raised in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal nor in the writ petition filed before us. It has not been urged before us that the procedure adopted by the respondent was unfair, arbitrary or malafide. In the absence thereof, and taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has examined the record, we do not find any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. G.S.SISTANI (JUDGE) I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) AUGUST 08, 2016 j