LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BHAGWAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
v.
BHAGWAN SINGH
AUGUST 30, 1995
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)
B
Service Law :
Railways-Compassionate appointment-Nomially to be made within
a period of five years from the date of death or within one year from the date C
of the applicant attaining majority-{n any case not later than ten years from
the date of death-Application filed in Tribunal after 20 years-Tribunal
allowing the same and directing appointment of applicant-Held; Not war-
ranted-Tribunal's order set aside.
The respondent's father, a Senior Clerk in the Railways died on D
12.09.1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent who
was a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent sought appointment on
compassionate grounds which was rejected by the railways.
The respondent challenged the order of the Railways before the
Central Administrative Tribunal which directed the Railways to provide E
appointment to the respondent on compassionate grounds if he was other-
wise found suitable within three months. Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's
judgment the Union of India preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the Union of India it was contended that normally all
appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period
of five years from the date of occurrence of the event and, in no case, more
than 10 years from the date of death; and that the request for appointment
on compassionate grounds should be received within one year from the
date of the respondent's attaining majority.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Normally all appointments on compassionate grounds
should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence
F
G
of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. There is also no
record to show that the respondent applied within five years of the event H
155
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
or within one year of his attaining majority. It is also on record to show
that the last application which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed
nearly 20 years after the death of the respondent's father. Patently the
application is barred. [158-C-D; E]
B
c
D
E
1.2. It is also on record that on the date when the respondent's father
died he had besides the respondent, who was a minor then, two major sons
and a wife. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any appointment
on compassionate grounds. The reason for making compassionate ap-
pointment which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assis-
tance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when
there is no other earning member in the family. [158-F-G; 160-B-C]
Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. (1989)
SC 1976; Smt Phoolwati v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. (1991) SC 469 and
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 138, relied
on.
2. It is settled law, that even if the Court reaches the conclusion that
the respondent has made out a case, all that the High Court or the
Administrative Tribunal can do, is only to direct the authority to consider
the claim of the respondent in accordance with relevant law or rules, if
any. [160-B]
State of Hmyana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, [1994] SCC 448, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7813 of
1995.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 204 of 1992.
Dr. Anand Prakash, AK. Sharma C.V.S. Rao and Hemant Sharma
for the Appellants.
G
Sushil Kumar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PARIPOORNAN, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
H
The Union of India, respondent in O.A. No. 204/92 before the
U.0.1. v. BHAGWANSINGH(PARIPOORNAN,J.]
157
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur and the Railway Authorities, A
Northern Railway, have filed this appeal against the Order of the Tribunal
dated 22.2.1993. The respondent herein as petitioner filed O.A. No. 204/92
praying for quashing the order denying him employment on compassionate
grounds and further prayed that appointment may be given to him. The
Tribunal by the impugned Order quashed the orders assailed before it and
directed the respondents to reconsider the application of. the respon-
dent/applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and provide
B
him with an appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable within three
months. Hence, this appeal by the unioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.