Point of law: In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a human outlook

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:

“….to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment, vide Lr.No.JS(Per)/Ds(Estt)/AS(V&R)-NT/PO-J/1002/02, Dt.04-06-2008 & Lr.No.JS(Per)/Ds(Estt)/AS(V&R)-NT/PO-J/1002/02, Dt.15-07-2008 and in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground on par with the other 17 candidates by considering the petitioner's representations dated 12-10-2009 & 05-07-2011, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the rejection letters dated 04-06-2008 & 15-07-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds on par with the other 17 candidates, who were appointed pursuant to the Memo No.JS(Per)/DS (Estt)/AS(V&R-NT)/PO-J/368/2005, Dt.01-07-2011 issued by the 1st respondent, with all consequential benefits and pass such other orders as may be just”.

2. The facts of the case as per the averments made in affidavit filed along with the writ petition are:

(i) The father of the petitioner joined in the service of APSEB on 01.10.1977. While he was working as H.S. Gr.II, he went on leave with effect from 06.04.2001 due to ill-health. He made an application seeking permission to retire on medical invalidation grounds. He was referred to the Medical Board and he was declared as completely and permanently incapacitated for the service vide Memo, dated 08.08.2001 and he was relieved from duty with effect from 31.08.2001. Later, vide Memo No.DE/O&M/SLR/C1/448/2002, dated 10.04.2002 revised relieving order was issued stating that the father of the petitioner was deemed to have been relieved from his duties with effect from 06.04.2001 F.N. on medical invalidation, since he was proceeded on leave from 06.04.2001 F.N. and he has not joined duty earlier to his medical invalidation, dated 31.08.2001. The father of the petitioner expired on 26.10.2001. The pension was sanctioned with effect from 06.04.2001 and the pensionary benefits were paid by reckoning date of retirement as 06.04.2001. The father of the petitioner’s date of birth was 01.07.1948. He joined in the service of APSEB on 01.10.1977. He will attain the age of superannuation on 01.07.2006 in normal course. But he expired on 26.10.2001.

(ii) Consequent to that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for providing employment on compassionate grounds. His case was rejected vide letter, dated 07.11.2003 on the ground that his father was having only 04 years 10 months balance service left over as on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation. According to the respondents, unless one has a left over service of 5 years or more, his dependents are not entitled for claiming compassionate appointment. Against the rejecting the claim of the petitioner, he filed a Writ Petition No.15047 of 2005.

(iii) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition No.15047 of 2005 at paragraph 4 it was averred that the father of the petitioner was relieved of his duties with effect from 31.08.2001 A.N. at first instance. Later, revised relieving orders were issued duly allowing him to retire with effect from 06.04.2001 F.N. as he has not joined duty earlier to his medical examination and report vide Memo, dated 10.04.2002. Before submitting pension papers, petitioner’s father expired on 26.10.2001. The pension was sanctioned with effect from 06.04.2001 and the benefits were passed on to his wife. Considering these admitted averments in the counter affidavit, this Court gave a finding that the father of the petitioner was made to retire on medical grounds with effect from 06.04.2001 and not on 31.08.2001 and if 06.04.2001 is taken into consideration, the father of the petitioner had m