Aviation Research Centre v. Mrs. Kalpana Dhar & ANR

$~32 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9743/2017 & C.M. No. 39678/2017 AVIATION RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kr. Gogna, CGSC, UOI with Mr. Upendra Sai, Adv.

versus MRS. KALPANA DHAR & ANR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Setu Niket, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 19.11.2018 The Aviation Research Centre has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 3184/2015 allowing the said Original Application preferred by the respondents. The father of respondent No. 2 Mr. Abhijit Dhar was working as a Carpenter Grade I in the Aviation Research Centre. He died in harness on 02.12.2012. Respondent No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment on 22.01.2013. His case was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) in its meeting held on 15.03.2013. The said Committee did not recommend the case of respondent No. 2 for compassionate appointment.

He again applied for compassionate appointment on 09.12.2013. After some information was sought from him, his request for

compassionate appointment was again rejected on 21.05.2014. On 30.06.2014, the said respondent again made a representation seeking compassionate appointment. The same was once again rejected vide letter dated 09.04.2015.

Consequently, the aforesaid original application was preferred by the two respondents. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application on the premise that the reasons given for rejection of the application for compassionate appointment were different on each occasion. It has also been observed that at the time of last rejection, though there were 10 vacancies to be filled by compassionate appointment, only 9 were filled and the 10th was left unfilled on account of another employee having died recently, and to await the application to seek compassionate appointment that may be made by the legal representatives in that case.

Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Firstly, the Tribunal should not have itself directed the making of compassionate appointment. Such a direction should not be issued by the Tribunal or the Courts as held by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) & Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718. Even if the Tribunal felt that the case of the respondent needed reconsideration, it should have so directed the petitioner to do so. Even on merits, the direction issued by the Tribunal does not appear to be sustainable. Merely because the rejection from time to time was on different grounds, it does not mean that the reasons disclosed when independently viewed, were not enough to merit such a rejection. A case for compassionate appointment may merit rejection on several grounds, and the grounds do not become bad because-on

different occasions, only some of them may be highlighted. Firstly, the father of respondent No. 2 died at the fag end of his service after rendering 39 years of service. Respondent No. 2 was about 29 years of age at that time. The reason given was that the family pension would suffice to meet the needs of respondent No. 1 widow. This reason, by itself, in our view, was good enough. Secondly, it has come on record that in fact, respondent No. 2 was earlier employed and drawing a salary of nearly Rs. 31,800/- per month.

According to the respondent, he was removed from service after issuing a show cause notice. No order of removal from service has been placed on record. Only the show cause notice dated 11.01.2013 has been produced. Therefore, respondent No. 2 was in service at the time of demise of his father on 02.12.2012. It has also come on record that the respondent No. 2 got married on 18.11.2015 and his wife was also employed and drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month.

The purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family, upon loss of the earning member of the family, leading to financial distress. The same cannot be said to be the position qua the respondents, since respondent No. 2 was already in service on the date of death of his father and even the deceased father had rendered practically his entire service. The immediate financial distress, if any, could not be said to be persisting when the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in 2017 i.e. nearly 5 years after the death of the father of respondent No. 2. We may observe that in similar factual background, this Court declined to grant relief to an applicant in Savitri Devi & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (84) DRJ 707 (DB). In that case as well, the employee had died 2 years prior to the date of his retirement in the year

2002. Pertinently, in the present case, the father of respondent No. 2 had about 1 year of service remaining at the time of his death. The applicant in that case as well was 28 years old at the time of death of his father/Government servant. In the present case, respondent No. 2 was 29 years of age and already in service.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2018 rd