Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

DEVIKA S S v. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Central Administrative Tribunal

Sep 26, 2022

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench — O.A No. 180/00515/2019 (26 September 2022)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Devika S.S., is the eldest daughter of the late Sajithkumar V.R., who was employed as a Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General (1st respondent). The deceased was involved in a road accident on 08.10.2016, underwent treatment and surgery at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, and died on 05.01.2017 at age 43, having left about 17 years' service.

The applicant sought a compassionate appointment from the 2nd respondent (Deputy Accountant General (Adm.)), which the 2nd respondent rejected by an order (recorded as Annexure-A1). The applicant filed the Original Application before this Tribunal, seeking a direction to set aside Annexure-A1 and to appoint her under the compassionate appointment scheme.

The respondents filed a reply denying the applicant's entitlement and contending that the family was not left in penury; the matter was heard by the Tribunal on 14.09.2022 and decided by Judicial Member Justice K. Haripal on 26.09.2022.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme following the death in harness of her father, Sajithkumar.
Whether the Annexure-A1 order issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the applicant's representation should be set aside and the respondents directed to appoint the applicant in a suitable post under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant alleged that her father suffered severe head injuries in the 08.10.2016 road accident, underwent treatment and surgery, and remained unconscious until his death on 05.01.2017.
The family incurred substantial expenses for treatment; documents (annexed to the O.A.) were produced to demonstrate liabilities including: a demand promissory note for Rs.5,00,000 (Annexure-A2), a gold loan of Rs.52,000 (Annexure-A3) and a housing loan of Rs.10,58,716 from State Bank of India (Annexure-A4) with monthly liability of Rs.9,239.
The applicant submitted that these liabilities and the family's financial distress justified compassionate appointment and that the respondents failed to apply proper mind; the Welfare Officer's field study report was not forthcoming and the respondents' conclusions were based on conjecture.
It was also argued that the documents produced are admissible and that the respondents did not challenge their credibility at any stage.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents contended compassionate appointment is intended only in deserving cases and is not an automatic right; it is to provide immediate assistance to families left in penury.
They relied on several judicial authorities (listed below) to assert that eligibility and the family's financial condition must be examined and that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The respondents pointed out that the applicant's mother is employed in a Co-operative Society under Kerala Health Research Centre and earns a regular monthly emolument (the applicant alleged Rs.30,500/month for the mother), and the family has received terminal benefits including death gratuity (DCRG) of Rs.8,54,880/- (after adjustment of certain liabilities) and amounts from CGEGIS and GPF/Insurance.
They stated that the family is receiving a family pension of Rs.20,550/- (basic pension) and, on enquiry, the respondents calculated the family's monthly income including pension at about Rs.59,987/-. They also noted the family lives in a house on 7.5 cents of land.
The respondents further submitted that the applicant had not produced documentary proof in support of some of the claimed liabilities and therefore the applicant was not entitled to relief; the O.A. should be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209	That compassionate appointments are to be given in deserving cases to provide immediate financial assistance to the family who lost its breadwinner.	The Court noted this authority as supporting the proposition that compassionate appointment is for deserving cases and to provide immediate assistance, not an automatic entitlement.
Santhosh Kumar Dubey v. State of UP and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 481	Supports the limited scope of compassionate appointment — it is to be granted in deserving cases for immediate assistance.	The Tribunal relied on this precedent to underscore that compassionate employment is not an inherent right and must be confined to cases of immediate need.
Auditor General of India and Others v. G. Anantha Rajeswara Rao, (1994) 1 SCC 192	That compassionate appointment is for family members of a person who died in harness and who need immediate appointment due to there being no other earning member.	The Court cited this to emphasize the requirement of immediate need and absence of other earning members as criteria for compassionate appointment.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal and another v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138	Compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of course irrespective of the family's financial condition.	The Tribunal relied on this to support the proposition that eligibility and financial condition must be examined and are determinative.
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrabarthy Singh, AIR 2013 SC 3365 / (2014) 13 SCC 583	Compassionate employment is an exception to articles 14 and 16, intended for families in crisis; it is not a right and should be given only when the authority is satisfied that without employment the family cannot meet the crisis. Such appointments should be provided immediately and not delayed.	The Tribunal quoted this decision at length and used it as a central guiding principle that compassionate employment requires careful, immediate assessment of financial distress and is not to be granted as a matter of right.
Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307	That compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right; it depends on eligibility, family financial condition and other circumstances.	The Tribunal cited this to reinforce that entitlement is not automatic and depends on circumstances and eligibility under rules.
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others v. T. Padmakumari Amma, 2007 (1) KHC 376	That a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be raised as a matter of right.	The Tribunal referred to this decision in support of the general proposition that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right.
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192	Compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner who left the family in penury and without means of livelihood.	The Tribunal invoked this authority to reiterate that the core object of the scheme is to prevent destitution and to provide immediate help in cases of penury.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal began by acknowledging the object of the compassionate appointment scheme: to provide immediate financial relief and employment assistance to dependents of a government servant who dies in harness and leaves the family in penury. The Tribunal observed that compassionate appointment is an exception and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The Tribunal reviewed the facts: the father died prematurely at 43 after an accident and subsequent treatment. It accepted that this caused emotional and financial loss to the family and noted the general humanitarian purpose of compassionate appointments.

The Tribunal then applied the settled legal principles from the cited authorities, in particular the requirement that the competent authority must examine the family's financial condition and be satisfied that without employment the family cannot meet the crisis. The Tribunal quoted MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrabarthy Singh to emphasize that compassionate employment is not to be granted automatically and should be provided only where the family faces immediate penury.

Turning to the evidence, the Tribunal noted:

Both parents of the applicant were employed; specifically, the applicant's mother is employed in a Co-operative Society under the Kerala Health Research Centre and draws a regular basic pension amount cited as Rs.20,550/-. The applicant had alleged the mother's emolument was Rs.30,500/-.
The respondents had paid the family terminal benefits including DCRG of Rs.8,54,880/- (after adjusting a liability of Rs.83,254/-) and other sums from CGEGIS and GPF/insurance, and there was an assertion that around Rs.8,83,770/- had been paid towards terminal benefits in total.
The respondents reported that the family monthly income, including the family pension, amounted to approximately Rs.59,987/-; the family also owned a dwelling (single-storied terraced house on 7.5 cents of land), which the Tribunal treated as an asset despite any outstanding liabilities.
The applicant had produced documents asserting liabilities (demand promissory note for Rs.5,00,000; gold loan Rs.52,000; housing loan Rs.10,58,716 with monthly installment Rs.9,239), but the respondents submitted that some liabilities were not supported by documentary proof and that the amounts received as terminal benefits could cover treatment expenses.
The Tribunal observed that it was not established from the record whether other amounts (e.g., leave encashment, motor vehicle compensation) were or could be claimed by legal representatives, but emphasized that the terminal benefits already paid were significant and appeared sufficient to address the stated liabilities relating to treatment.

After evaluating the material and applying the legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the family was left in such straitened circumstances as to justify compassionate appointment. Given the mother's employment, the monthly family income (as assessed by respondents), the terminal benefits already paid, and the presence of assets, the Tribunal was not convinced that immediate employment assistance was necessary to prevent destitution.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Original Application is DISMISSED.

Implications

Direct effect: The Tribunal refused to set aside Annexure-A1 and denied the applicant's prayer for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The applicant will not be appointed under that scheme pursuant to this order.
Costs: The Tribunal ordered no costs.
Precedential effect: The opinion applies established principles (as summarized above) to the facts and does not indicate the creation of a new legal principle; it reinforces the settled view that compassionate appointment is not a right and must be confined to deserving cases where the family is in immediate penury.

Annexures (as referenced in the opinion)

Selected annexures relied upon or referred to in the opinion include: Annexure-A1 (order of 2nd Respondent dated 12.04.2018 rejecting compassionate appointment), Annexure-A2 (demand promissory note dated 08.11.2016), Annexure-A3 (gold loan ticket dated 19.03.2015), Annexure-A4 (loan arrangement letter for housing loan), Annexure-A5 (representation dated 15.12.2017). Respondents' Annexure-R1(a) (relevant circular) was also listed.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided Tribunal opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that text.

Show all summary ...

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A No. 180/00515/2019

Monday, this the 26^thday of September, 2022.

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTIE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Devika S.S., D/o Late Sajithkumar V.R., Devnandanam, T.C.50/124(1), Kulathara, Kalady,

Karmana P.O.

Thiruvanthapuram-695 002 - Applicant [By Advocate : Mr.P.T. Mohan Kumar]

Versus

1. The Accountant General(A&E), Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

2. The Deputy Accountant General(Adm.), Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. - Respondents [By Advocate : Mr.K.I. Mayankutty Mather] The application having been heard on 14.09.2022, the Tribunal on the 26^thSeptember, 2022 delivered the following:

O R D E R

Applicant is the daughter of late Sajithkumar, who was working as Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, the 1^strespondent. Sajithkumar met with a road accident on 08.10.2016 and was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. While undergoing treatment, on 05.01.2017, he succumbed to the injuries leaving behind his wife and two daughters. The applicant is the eldest daughter of the deceased. She approached the 2^ndrespondent for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by Annexure-A1 order. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her in a suitable post under the compassionate appointment scheme after setting aside Annexure-A1 order issued by the 2^ndrespondent.

2. According to the applicant, on 08.10.2016, while Sajithkumar was travelling on his motor cycle, he was hit down by a motor car, causing serious injuries on his head and was immediately taken to the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, where he underwent surgery. But he remained unconscious till his death on

05.01.2017. He was 43 years old and died leaving 17 years service in his career. He is survived his wife Smitha and two daughters. The applicant's mother, the widow, is working in a Co-operative establishment earning a monthly emolument of Rs.30,500/- only. But she has numerous liabilities to be met. During the period of treatment the mother had borrowed Rs.5 Lakh under Annexure-A2 demand promissory note; she had also availed a loan of Rs.52,000/- from Canara Bank, Puthenchanthai branch by pledging gold ornaments. She had also availed a loan of Rs.10,58,716/- as home loan from the State Bank of India, towards which Rs.9239/- is payable every month. According to the applicant, they are in dire financial straits and therefore employment under the compassionate appointment scheme is necessary for taking out the family from financial liabilities. However, the respondents rejected her representation, without considering the actual facts and the financial emergency faced by the family. Hence the application.

3. The 2^ndrespondent filed a reply on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the Original Application. According to him, the application is not allowable. The very object

of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Quoting various authorities, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 209], Santhosh Kumar Dubey v. State of UP and Others [(2009) 6 SCC 481], it is stated that such an appointment shall be given only in deserving cases to provide immediate financial assistance to the family, who had lost its bread winner. Similarly, relying on the decision reported in Auditor General of India and Others v. G.Anantha Rajeswara Rao [(1994)

1 SCC 192], it was pointed out that such an appointment could be given only to members of the family of the person who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family. Relying on Umesh Kumar Nagpal and another v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138] he said that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the

deceased. According to the respondents, such an appointment can be given only in consonance with the rules and schemes formulated by the Government. Relying on the decision reported in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [AIR 2013 SC 3365] and Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami [(2012) 11 SCC 307] he said that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically but it depends on various other circumstances, eligibility and financial condition of the family. Relying on the decision in Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others v. T. Padmakumari Amma [2007(1)KHC376], it is pointed out that such a claim cannot be raised as a matter of right.

4. Turning to the facts of the case, the respondents pointed out that the mother of the applicant is employed, that the deceased was given death gratuity of Rs.8,54,880/-, after adjusting the liability of Rs.83254/- besides a sum of Rs.75,602/- from CGEGIS. The mother is also entitled to get family pension at the rate of Rs.20,550/- . According to the respondents, the applicant is not in dire financial straits as claimed by her. Regarding the liabilities,

according to the respondents, they have not produced documents in support of these liabilities. Moreover, enquiry revealed that the family is living in a single storied terraced house having an area of 900 sq. in 7.5 cents of land. According to them, monthly income of the family including the family pension comes to Rs.59987/-. In the circumstances, they contend that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the application is liable to be dismissed.

5. I heard learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had produced necessary proof that after the father had sustained serious injuries in the road accident the family had to spend huge amounts for the treatment, which is evident from the documents produced along with the O.A. Those documents are admissible and at no point of time, the respondents had raised doubt regarding the credibility of those documents. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there was no proper application of mind, the discretion expected to be exercised by the authorities was not exercised. The field study report of the Welfare Officer is not forthcoming and such a conclusion was reached on the mere reason that the mother of the applicant is

employed in a Co-operative Society. According to the learned counsel, the conclusions arrived at by the respondents are based on mere conjunctures and surmises.

6. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, they are expected to consider the application only on the basis of the guidelines and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. When such guidelines are applied, it has become very clear that the applicant is not entitled to get assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme. According to the learned counsel, what is necessary is immediate help which was expected to be given in the case of a person who died prematurely. Here, DCRG and other amounts have been given. The family is earning nearly Rs.60000/- per month and therefore, this is not a fit case for extending employment assistance. The learned counsel also reiterated the dicta in the decisions quoted supra. But according to the learned counsel for the applicant, many of the decisions of are not applicable to the facts of the case.

7. There cannot be any dispute on the object and intention behind the scheme formulated for the purpose of granting

employment assistance to a dependent of an employee who died in harness. In deserving cases, in order to save the dependents from destitution and penury, they should be given financial help as well as employment assistance. It is the duty of the State. But as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, merely for the reason that a person had died in service, a blanket claim cannot be raised for employment by a dependent. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2000) 7 SCC 192], compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis caused due to the death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Similarly, it is the settled proposition that no one can claim employment under the dying in harness scheme as a matter of right. In this connection, it is important to note the following passage from the decision in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrabarthy Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583].

"6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in

order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years."

8. The claim of the applicant has to be considered viz-a-viz the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and other Courts in numerous decisions relied on by the parties. It is the common case that the said Sajithkumar had died at the premature age of 43 years. While working as Senior Accountant in the office of the 1^st respondent, he met with an accident and after undergoing treatment for a few months in hospital, atlast he succumbed to the injuries. No

doubt, the sudden and untimely death of the father at the age of 43 years must have created a vacuum in the life of the children who were students at that time. The emotional and financial loss caused to the family is irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of money or by giving employment. All the same, granting employment assistance to a deserving family member arises only if he/she satisfies the conditions evolved by the authorities over a period of time. The correctness of the reasoning recorded by the authority is judiciable.

9. In the case, both the parents of the applicant were employed. It is not disputed that the mother is employed in a Co- operative Society under the Kerala Health Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and she has a regular monthly earning of her own. In other words, by the sudden demise of the father, it cannot be said that the family had fallen in straitened circumstances that led to destitution and utter penury.

10. It may be true that the mother of the petitioner has availed a housing loan of over Rs.10 lakh from the State Bank of India. All the same, she is an earning member. By availing such a loan, they have only acquired land or house to their credit, which is an asset

despite outstanding liability. Moreover, from Annexure-A5 it is clear that the widow is drawing a basic pension of Rs.20550/- . After the death of Sajithkumar the family has been given DCRG of Rs.8,54,880/- besides other amount from the GPF, Life Insurance Policy, CGE Insurance amount etc. It is not known whether the deceased had leave at credit to be encashed. Similarly, there is no mention whether the legal representatives could claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Normally, such amounts are also due. It is very pertinent that even though some amounts were availed for the treatment of Sajithkumar, nearly Rs.8,83,770/- was paid towards terminal benefits which are sufficient to pay back such amounts.

11. After evaluating the entire circumstances and the settled principles of law governing the subject, I am not convinced that the applicant deserves to be appointed under the employment assistance scheme. It was submitted that number of posts to be filled under that scheme is limited. If such a scheme is not implemented in its letter and spirit, the most deserving candidate will be excluded from the zone of consideration and therefore, the officials are expected to take extra care in granting the benefit to the deserving candidates only.

On these considerations, I do not find any merit in the application. It is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 26^thSeptember, 2022.

JUSTICE K. HARIPAL

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Applicant's Annexures Annexure-A1 True copy of the Order/letter No.DAG(A)/C. Cell/Comp- Appt./2018-19/68 issued by the 2^ndRespondent dated

12.04.2018

Annexure-A2-: True copy of the demand promissory note, executed by the mother of the applicant to Mrs. Usha Vijayakumar, dated 08.11.2016 (with translation)

Annexure-A3: True copy of the gold loan ticket issued from Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 19.03.2015

Annexure-A4: A true copy of the loan arrangement letter executed by the mother of the applicant in favour of Canara Bank, for securing housing loan

Annexure-A5:True copy of the representation to the 1^stRespondent requesting for appointing her on compassionate grounds, addressed to the 1^stRespondent, dated 15.12.2017. Respondents' Annexures

Annexure-R1(a): True copy of Circular No.34 issued in No.09-Staff Entt. (Rules)/12-2015

********