T. Swamy Dass vs Union of India - 2002 Supreme(MP) 53

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(MP) 53

2002 (1) JLJ 350
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and K.K. Lahoti, J.
T. Swamy Dass v. Union of India and others
Writ Petition No. 5760 of 2000; Decided on 10.1.2002.

Advocates:
K.S. Thakur for petitioner; R.S. Patel, Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government.

Headnote:Army Service -- appointment on compassionate ground -petitioner‘s case should have been considered under the policy effective on date of his application -- consideration delayed for seven years -.
       decision arrived at under later policy set aside. The petitioner alleges that he is qualified to be appointed against Group D post with the respondents. As such, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground in 1992, his father having died while in service. All necessary requirements in support of the claim were furnished to the competent authority. Surprisingly, after lapse of seven years, respondents did not allow the claim, ex-pressing inability to give him appointment. [Para 3]
       Held: Case of the petitioner should have been considered under the policy of June 13, 1987. Father of petitioner died on October 29, 1992. Same year, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground against class IV post. There is no dispute that he was eligible at that time. He and his mother furnished material sought by the respondents in support of the claim.
       Therefore, the respondents should not have delayed consideration of the claim for seven years. The fault was on the part of respondents and not of the petitioner. The case of petitioner should have been considered on the basis of requirements under policy dated June 13, 1987 and not on the basis of later policy of October 9, 1998 and the decision so arrived is liable to be set aside. AIR 1989 SC 1976, AIR 1996 SC 2445, AIR 1997 SC 123, AIR 1994 SC 2148 and AIR 1996 SC 2226 followed. [Para 8]
       lsuk lsok & vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr & ;kph ds ekeys ij] mlds vkosnu ds fnukad dks çHkkoh uhfr ds v/khu fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk&lkr o"kZ ds foyac ls fopkj fd;k x;k & i‘pkrorhZ uhfr ds v/khu fy;k x;k fofu‘p; vikLrA

       ;kph dk vfHkdFku gS fd og çR;FkhZx.k ds lewg&?k in ij fu;qDr fd, tkus ds fy, vgZ gSA vr%] lsok ds nkSjku mlds firk dh e`R;q gksus ds dkj.k mlus vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds fy, mlus lu~ 1992 esa vkosnu fd;kA nkos ds leFkZu esa lHkh vko‘;d vis{kk,¡ l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds le{k iwjh dh xbZ FkhaA vk‘p;Ztud :i ls] lkr o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ds i‘pkr~ çR;FkhZx.k us mls fu;qDr djus esa vleFkZrk vfHkO;Dr djrs gq, mldk nkok Lohdkj ugha fd;kA ¿iSjk 3

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph ds ekeys ij 13 twu 1987 dh uhfr ds v/khu fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ;kph ds firk dh e`R;q 29 vDVwcj 1992 dks gqbZA mlh o"kZ ;kph us prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu fd;kA ;g fookn ugha gSa fd ml le; og ik= FkkA mlus rFkk mldh ekrk us nkos ds leFkZu esa çR;FkhZx.k }kjk bZfIlr lkexzh is‘k dhA vr%] çR;FkhZx.k dks nkos ij lkr o"kZ ds foyac ls fopkj ugha djuk pkfg, FkkA xyrh çR;FkhZx.k dh Fkh] ;kph dh ughaA ;kph ds ekeys ij uhfr fnukad 13 twu 1987 ds v/khu vis{kkvksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] 9 vDVwcj 1998 dh i‘pkr~ orhZ uhfr ds vk/kkj ij ugha] rFkk bl çdkj fd;k x;k fofu‘p;u vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1976] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2445] , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 123] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 2148 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2226 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Singh, C.J. -- 1. This writ petition is directed against order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, dated September 7, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 177 of 2000.

2. Petitioner is son of late Naib Subedar D. Thomas Raj who was with respondent Army Corps of EME and died on 20.1 0.1992 in Command Hospital, Southern Command, Pune due to chronic renal failure with severe anaemia at the age of 41, completing service of 22 years. The deceased left behind wife, applicant and parents dependent on him.

3. The petitioner alleges that he is qualified to be appointed against Group D post with the respondents. As such, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground in 1992, his father having died while in service.

All necessary requirements in support of the claim were furnished to the competent authority. Surprisingly, after lapse of seven years, respondents did not allow the claim, expressing inability to give him appointment.

4. Case of respondents is that case of petitioner was considered by the authorities at all levels on the basis of existing policy on the subject.

However, his case could not find place in the merit list within the prescribed quota.

5. The Tribunal did not consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment, rather it proceeded to hold that deceased left only the applicant, his mother and the parents. They could depend on the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 17, 984.00, Army Group Insurance Fund of Rs. 22, 846.00 and mother of applicant was receiving family pension with dearness allowance. Petitioner feels aggrieved by this order, therefore, it has been challenged through this writ petition.

6. Shri K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri R.S. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government were heard. Record perused. Shri K.S. Thakur submitted that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed against Group D post under the respondents as per policy which existed at the time when he became entitled to apply for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel refers to policy of June 13, 1987 and contends that under this policy, 20% Group D posts can be filled on compassionate ground. Learned counsel seeks assistance from Supreme Court decision reported in Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1989 SC 1976), paragraph 9 of which holds that :

"9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant." In this case, the petitioner had given application for appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate ground in November, 1982. She had then a right to have her case considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the existing Government memorandum. In January 1983, she passed trade test conducted by DGBR, though there was no reason to make her wait till 1985 when ban on appointment of ladies was imposed. The plea so raised was rejected and Apex Court issued mandatory direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post to which she had already qualified. The Apex Court further directed to appoint her in an appropriate place in Delhi itself within a period of three weeks from the date of order.

7. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondents contends that the case of petitioner was considered in the light of policy dated October 9, 1998 under which only 5% vacancies are available for compassionate appointment to Group D posts. Since posts were not available, the petitioner could not be appointed. The question which fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(MP) 53

2002 (1) JLJ 350Bhawani Singh, C.J. and K.K. Lahoti, J.T. Swamy Dass v. Union of India and othersWrit Petition No. 5760 of 2000; Decided on 10.1.2002.

Cases Referred (5)

2002 (1) JLJ 350
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and K.K. Lahoti, J.
T. Swamy Dass v. Union of India and others
Writ Petition No. 5760 of 2000; Decided on 10.1.2002.