-Report by Tannu Dahiya
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday while hearing the petition rejected the application made for compassionate appointment in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Umesh Kumar.
Facts:
The facts of the case are, the respondent is the son of the late Bishan lal, a safaiwala, who died in 2008 while serving the petitioner. The Board of Officers while considering the request of the respondent recommended the grant of compassionate appointment. As per the recommendations he was to be appointed as safaiwala in Group D. He was informed that his name was under consideration and was asked to reply if he was willing to do the same. There were five vacant posts for safaiwala. He submitted his willingness.
Now in his plea before the tribunal, in 2019, the respondent claimed that he was informed that his application is rejected and he will not be considered again for the appointment. Now the respondent claimed that his family was in a good condition as per the screening of the Board officers. Further, he secured 66 marks while the cut-off was 78 marks and hence his application was rejected. Reference was also given that according to the Department of Personnel and Training, the maximum period for which his consideration can be considered is up to 3 years after the Board of officers verify it. If after three years his appointment cannot be considered then the case will be closed. The tribunal in its decision said that it was on the recommendations of the Board officers that his appointment was considered and it was acknowledged after due consideration of the financial condition of the applicant’s family. Hence the petitioners were asked to grant the respondent a compassionate appointment within three months.
The petitioner filed a review petition of the above order which was cancelled by referring to the Supreme Court judgement given in the case of the State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. (2008) (3) AISLJ209.
Petitioner’s contentions:
Mr Jaswinder Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order said that there are certain limits which are to be followed while granting compassionate appointments. He also stated the fact that the respondent had secured fewer marks than the cut-off. According to him, the tribunal failed to understand that the Board of Officers proceedings held in 2009 were basic preliminary proceedings and not the final proceedings that the court had wrongly presumed. Also, the financial conditions of the respondent have changed and there could be more deserving cases than him. The position of the respondent is much lower than the last selectee and the number of vacancies being limited there is no chance of appointment.
Respondent’s contentions:
The learned counsel for the respondent justified that the decision of the tribunal was correct as there is no reason for the petitioner for denying the order. There had to be action taken since the family lost its earning member. Hence she seeks dismissal of the petition.
Judgement:
The issue arises whether the tribunal’s decision is justified in ordering the Board of officers to appoint the respondent. The court accepted that it was the Zonal Board who has the authority to appoint and such a process is followed in every case. Also, there is a difference of 12 marks between the last selectee and the respondent. It also said that the process due to which the respondent was not selected and the reason of the petitioner have been overlooked by the tribunal. It has been fourteen years already and the wife of the deceased and the family has been receiving a family pension. The tribunal has clearly mistaken in giving the impugned order. Hence the writ petition is allowed.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Y0xS0G
CITATION: W. P(C) 32/2018