High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sunil Kumar v. Union Of India & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 422 of 2006  RD-AH 8828 (2 May 2006)
Special Appeal No.422 of 2006
Sunil Kumar vs. Union of India & others.
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
This is a special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arising from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5701 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
Heard Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri J.P. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri B.N. Singh and Shri Ravi Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
It appears that the appellant applied for giving compassionate appointment on account of sudden demise of his late father during the employment under the respondents. The welfare officer having inquired into the matter submitted his report to the District Manager, which was placed before the High Level Committee to consider the request of the appellant for giving him compassionate appointment. The committee, having considered all aspect of the matter, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground, inter alia, that the family of the appellant is not living in penury and in indigent condition and thus, does not justify the claim for giving compassionate appointment. The aggrieved appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the judgment under appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the father of the appellant was the sole bread earner of the family and on account of his death in harness the family is put to indigent condition and thus, to mitigate the hardship of the family the appellant should have been given compassionate appointment.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the claim of the appellant was examined and considered by the High Power Committee of the B.S.N.L. and its corporate office in its meeting dated 10.8.2005 and in view of the fact that all the brothers of the appellant are grown up to support the family, and in the absence of any evidence that the family is living in indigent condition, rejected the request in accordance with the scheme dated 9.10.1998 framed for giving compassionate appointment. It is also pointed out that the Inspector, in his report dated 17.9.2005, informed that the family is getting pension of Rs.2,335/- per month and has also got a sum of Rs.2,73,768/- against terminal benefit and thus, the family cannot be said to be living in penury.
We have considered the submissions made on both sides.
It is not the case where the claim of the appellant has not been considered for giving such appointment. The law for giving compassionate appointment is well settled. A dependant of an employee dying in harness is only entitled to be considered for such appointment and he has no vested right to claim appointment. The idea for providing compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis, which the family is facing on account of death of the sole bread earner. However, if it is found that the family has sufficient source of income to survive, the compassionate appointment can be declined. In the case in hand, the father of the appellant died on 26.3.2000. It has also not been disputed that the family pension of Rs.2,335/- per month is being paid to the family apart from other benefits such as terminal benefit etc., which has also been paid after the death of the father of the appellant. In the absence of any material on record on the basis of which one can come to the conclusion that the family has no means of livelihood and, therefore, is in indigent condition, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. The provision of giving compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of appointment and, therefore, unless the authority is satisfied that the family cannot sustain without providing appointment to one of the family members, who was dependant of the deceased employee, the request for such appointment can be declined and there can be no exception to it. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. For granting compassionate appointment penurious condition of the family is sine qua non.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.