WP/20217/2004 of Godavari Chandrasekhar, Vs Chief General Manager, Telecom, on 28 December 2004

O R D E R:

Challenging the proceedings in Lr.No.TA/ST/AR/12-638/2001 dated 15.7.2003 issued by the 1[st] respondent as illegaland arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of thepresent writ petition may be stated as follows:

The father of the petitioner died on 9.11.2000 while hewas on duty. The petitioner is having a family consisting of mother,two sisters and one brother. The petitioner is the eldest son and hisfamily was depending upon the salary received their late father andafter the death of his father, the entire family is depending on thepension received by his mother. The petitioner’s mother is sufferingfrom ailments and most of the pension being received has to bespent on medical expenses. The petitioner is married and is havingtwo family children. On 17.4.2001 the petitioner made an applicationfor appointment on compassionate grounds. There upon thepetitioner received a rejection letter dated 15.7.2003 issued by the 1[st]respondent stating that the request of the petitioner for appointmenton compassionate grounds for Group-D post is rejected. According tothe petitioner, the said rejection is without assigning any reasons andit is a non-speaking order. As per the proceedings dated 30.6.1987and 9.12.1993 of the Government of India, the petitioner is entitled tocompassionate appointment for Group-C and Group-D posts.Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A. 908 of 2003 before the CentralAdminsitrative Tribunal seeking to suspend the impugnedproceedings dated 15.7.2003 issued by the 1[st] respondent.Thereafter, the High Power Committee which met on 3.6.2003examined the case of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner states that even though one SamudralaDhanalakshmi received an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- without LIC &Postal Life Insurance and is receiving Rs.4,050/- per month towardspension, she was given appointment on compassionate grounds. Soalso, M.Venkatamma, B.Sunil Kumar, P. Jagan Mohan Rao andV.Lopamudra were appointed on compassionate grounds and thatthe case of the petitioner stands on par with the abovementionedemployees. It is also stated that initially the case of one Y.Vijayalakshmi was rejected but again her case was reviewed andappointment was given on 17.12.2003. The O.A. filed by thepetitioner was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence thepresent writ petition.

Arguments

The respondents filed counter affidavit admitting theemployment of the petitioner’s father and also that the deceasedsurvived with his wife, two major sons and two daughters. The HighPower Committee met on 3.6.2003 has examined the case of thepetitioner thoroughly with reference to the service rendered by thedeceased person, family pension and taking into account the familypension, terminal benefits, size of the family etc. rejected the case ofthe petitioner. As per the proceedings of the department dated16.2.1999, while considering the request for appointment oncompassionate grounds a balanced and objective assessment of thefinancial condition of the family has to be made taking into account itsassets and liabilities and all other relevant factors such as thepresence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of thechildren and the essential needs of the family. The sons anddaughters of the deceased employee are all majors and welleducated and they are not depending on the mother’s income. Withregard to the other cases on compassionate grounds, it is stated inthe counter that their cases have been considered as per the meritsof the individual cases. Therefore, it is stated, the petitioner cannotsay that his case was discriminated. Hence, the respondents pray todismiss the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. A. Chayadevi contended that at the time of death of the deceased all the petitionerswere depending on him and the pension is hardly sufficient to meetthe medical expenses of the wife of the deceased; that similarlysituated persons were considered by the department in givingappointments on compassionate grounds; that the order underchallenge does not indicate the reasons for rejecting the case of thepetitioner and therefore it is a non-speaking order. She furthercontended that the Assistant Director also recommended forappointment of the petitioner. Hence, she prays to reconsider theappointment of the petitioner taking into account the rules governingthe appointment on compassionate grounds.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentscontended that each case has to be decided on its individual relativemerits and giving of appointments to some other persons cannot betaken as a basis for claiming appointment of the petitioner oncompassionate grounds; that considering all the aspects theimpugned proceedings have been passed and therefore the orderunder challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to callfor interference of this Court.

With regard to appointment of a person of the deceasedemployee on compassionate grounds, certain instructions have beenissued by the G.I. Department in O.M.No.14014/6/86-Estt. (D) dated30[th] June 1987 as amended by O.M. No. 14014/20190-Estt. (D)dated 9[th] December 1993. Clause 4(e) of the said instructions readsas follows:

“In deserving cases even where there is anearning member in the family, awidow/son/daughter of the deceasedGovernment servant, leaving his family indistress may be considered for appointmentwith the prior approval of the Secretary of theDepartment concerned who, beforeapproving the appointment, will satisfyhimself that the grant of concession isjustified having regard to the number ofdependents, the assets and the liabilities left

by the deceased Government servant, theincome of the earning member as also hisliabilities including the fact that the earningmember is residing with the family of thedeceased Government servant and whetherhe should not be a source of support to theother members of the family”.

The above para makes it clear that the respondents haveto take note of the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left bythe deceased Government servant, income of the earning memberas also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member isresiding with the family of the deceased Government servant andwhether he should not be a source of support to the other membersof the family.

The impugned proceedings dated 15.7.2003 reads asfollows:

“Please refer to your request for appointmenton compassionate grounds in relaxation ofrecruitment rules for Group-D posts. Thecase has been examined by the High PowerCommittee, which met on 3.6.2003 withregard to terminal benefits, the property, theliability and the size of the family. I amdirected to intimate that it has been decidedto REJECT the request for appointment inrelaxation of recruitment rules in this case”.

Though the above proceedings shows that the HighPower Committee which met on 2.6.2003 has taken note of terminalbenefits, property, liability and size of the family, but it does notindicate the benefits that have been received by the wife of thedeceased, whether the petitioner or any one of the family members ofthe deceased employee are having any properties and the nature ofthe liabilities. Therefore, it does not contain any reasons ofwhatsoever. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment, theapplication for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Governmentservant has received the benefits under the various welfareschemes. While considering a request for appointment oncompassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of thefinancial condition of the family has to be made taking into account itsassets and liabilities including the benefits received under the variouswelfare schemes mentioned above and all other relevant factorssuch as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, agesof the children and the essential needs of the family etc.

The GMTD, Guntur recommended for appointment of thepetitioner on compassionate grounds. It is admitted fact that themother of the petitioner is receiving Rs.5,184/- per month towardspension. A total amount of Rs.4,98,280/- has been received by thewife of the petitioner. As seen from the impugned proceedings, thereis no balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition ofthe petitioner’s family. So also, it does not indicate the assets andliabilities of the petitioner. In the following cases, admittedly someappointments were made on compassionate grounds. They are:

“i) Samudrala Dhanalakshmi w/o LateThomas, her husband was died on 3.3.2002.After the death of her husband she receivedan amount of Rs.4,35,000/- without LIC &Postal Life Insurance & receiving Rs.4,050/-per month towards pension, she gotcompassionate appointment and she isworking at Annapurna Complex,Laxmipuram, Guntur.ii) Smt. Murgula Venkatamma w/o LateLaxminarayana, her husband was expiredon 3.9.2000, after death of her husband shereceived an amount of Rs.3,16,475/- she isgetting Rs.3,837/- p.m. towards pension &she is having own house worth atRs.1,00,000/- though the respondents gavea compassionate appointment to her andnow she is working in Group-D post, Narasarraopet, Guntur District.

iii) Boddu Sunil Kumar s/o Late B. SubbaRao, his father was died on 13.9.1997 andhis family received notional benefits amountof Rs.3,31,764/- out of that they showed theliabilities Rs.1,50,000/- his mother receivingpension Rs.3,757/- p.m. The respondentgave a compassionate appointment to himand now he is working at CommercialSection Office of General Manager, BSNL,Guntur.

iv) Pojala Jagan Moha Rao s/o P.Venkateshwara Rao, his father died on18.4.1998 after death of his father theyreceived an amount of Rs.3,38,823/- and hismother was receiving Rs.3,770/- p.m.towards pension. The respondent gavecompassionate appointment to him and nowhe is working as A.O. Pay & Claims secondland, Laxmipuram, Guntur.v) V.Lopamudra d/o Late RamakoteshwarRao, her father died on 7.9.1997 after herfather’s death their family received retirementbenefits of Rs.4,28,276/- and they showedtheir liabilities at Rs.3,50,000/- and hermother is receiving Rs.3,857/- p.m. towardspension, she got appointment on 27.12.2000vide employment No.7095 oncompassionate appointment in therespondent’s department”.

Further, in the case of one Y. Vijayalakshmi, though herapplication was rejected along with the petitioner’s application forcompassionate appointment on 15.7.2003, she was givenappointment by reviewing the same.

So, from the appointments made as stated above, thecase of the petitioner is discriminated. The order under challengedoes not contain the reasons at all and it is not in accordance withthe scheme framed by the respondents.

Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 15.7.2003are set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents for re-consideration of appointment to the petitioner in any suitable post inaccordance with the scheme framed by the respondents.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

___________________

K.C. Bhanu, J.

Date: --12—2004.

MVB.

// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad.

2 The General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guntur. Guntur.

3. 2CD copies