Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Kailash Gambhir, J.
Shri Ved Prakash - Appellants
Vs.
Chairman/Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Council - Respondent
W.P. (C). No. 1301/2006
Decided On: 10.01.2007
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Jasvinder Kaur, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Jyoti Singh, Adv.
Compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course and is subject to genuine financial need. Fraudulent misrepresentation vitiates the right to compassionate employment.
Headnote:
Compassionate Employment - Fraudulent Misrepresentation - [Compassionate Employment] - [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.: [1994] 3 SCR 893] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to compassionate employment and emphasized that it cannot be claimed as a matter of course and is not a vested right. The judgment highlighted the need for genuine financial need and the prohibition of fraudulent misrepresentation in securing compassionate employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who was a regular employee of the respondent. The respondent issued an appointment letter to the petitioner, but later found that the petitioner and his mother had suppressed the fact of the mother's employment with the respondent in order to secure the petitioner's employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and his mother had committed fraud by suppressing information to secure compassionate employment, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate employment and whether the suppression of information by the petitioner and his mother constituted fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course and emphasized the need for genuine financial need. It also stated that fraudulent misrepresentation vitiates the right to compassionate employment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The rule was discharged.
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties the matter is set for hearing.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition feeling aggrieved that although offer of appointment was given to him vide order dated 10.10.2002 but still the respondent did not permit the petitioner to join his duties. The case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner Shri Jagdish was a regular employee of the respondent since 1972. He died on 15.8.2001 during the course of his employment. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner the deceased was survived by his widow Smt. Ram Piari, petitioner Sh. Ved Prakash besides four brothers and a sister. After the demise of his father, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and his application for appointment was duly considered and verified by the respondent. The petitioner was called for interview which he successfully cleared and pursuant thereto he was also issued appointment letter dated 10.10.2002. Following the terms and conditions of the appointment the petitioner was sent for medical examination and he was declared fit.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even after qualifying the interview as well as medical test, the petitioner was not permitted to join the service thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.
5. Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner was not permitted to join the service as on scrutiny and verification it was found that petitioner as well as his mother had played fraud in securing the employment with the respondent on compassionate grounds. Ms. Jyoti Singh says that the affidavit filed by the mother discloses that she had no source of income and thereforee there was a need to give employment to the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds. She further contends that the fact of the employment of the mother with the respondent as Beldar was deliberately suppressed so as to secure employment for the petitioner. Ms. Singh has drawn my attention to para 3 of the affidavit which is at page 27 of the paper book, filed by the mother of the petitioner, inter alias stating, that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased/father of the petitioner and she has no source of income. The affidavit has the impression of thumb mark of the mother of the petitioner, although under the thumb mark name of the mother has been written in vernacular language. If the said affidavit alone is taken into consideration then at the first blush the impression is gained that mother of the petitioner being an illiterate might have put her thumb impression without even knowing the contents of the affidavit but after the perusal of the Form which is at page 28-29 of the paper book duly filled in by the petitioner himself, fraud and suppression on the part of the petitioner as well as his mother gets fully exposed. In para 4 of the said Form against the name of the mother of the petitioner the column was filled with (Grahini) which means house wife. The said Form was duly signed by the petitioner and the same was also verified by two employees of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in para 5 of the letter dated 10.10.2002 issued by the respondent it has been clearly stated that in case the information received is found to be incorrect or any material concealment is revealed then the respondent can terminate the service and reserves right to initiate appropriate proceedings. Para 5 of the letter dated 10.10.2002 is reproduced below:
In case the information received is found to be incorrect or any material concealment is revealed then the Council can terminate the service and reserves right to initiate appropriate proceedings.
6. It is quite shocking that to secure employment on compassionate ground one has to play such kind of fraud by not coming forward with the correct and exact disclosures. Many employ
