R. R. K Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. I have heard Sri R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of INdia.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners have claimed the appointment on compassionate grounds as his father serving with Food Corporation of India died on 14th February, 1988. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no 1 Smt. Nanhki Devi being widow of Sri Payare Lal and petitioner no. 2 Amar Singh Arya being his youngest son were dependent of late Sri Payare Lal and after his death they have no means of livelihood. They moved a joint application for appointing petitioner no. 2 Amar Singh Arya on a suitable post on compassionate grounds and an affidavit dated 4th June, 1988 was also filed in the court. This affidavit has been filed as Annexure 4. In this affidavit, it has been clearly stated that other three sons Varma Lal, Sharma Lal and Ram Chandra are living with their families seperately and they are not maintaining the petitioners. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no property with them. Amar Singh Arya, petitioner no. 2 is an unemployed and for their livelihood, it is necessary that they be given appointments. This application was forwarded by the authorities on 21st July, 1988. The document has been filed as Annexure-5. In this document favourable recommendation was made and it was stated that the petitioner no. 2 may be given appointment in category III. Further enquiries were made in respect of the petitioners status and ultimately by order dated 6th May, 1989 it was communicated to the relevant authorities that three brothers are living seperately and they are not helping petitioners. Earlier by letter dated 19th December, 1988 it was also pointed out that the petitioner no. 2 may be given appointment if thought proper in category IV. The claim of the petitioners, however, has been rejected by order dated 2nd September, 1989 which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, this writ petition has been filed. Unfortunately in the order no reasons have been recorded for. rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The order passed on 2nd September, 1989 is quoted below : "In reference to this office Regd letter No. A/25 (PF)/88/7075 dated 23-7-88 vide which the papers regarding your appointment on compassionate grounds were forwarded to our Zonal Office/Regional Office. In this connection it is to inform you that the case has been examined in details at our Zonal Office, New Delhi, in accordance with the existing instructions, where in the case could not find favour on its merit" In my opinion, petitioners by means of the affidavit filed by them and other documents fully established their claims and the authorities made a favourable recommedation for giving appointment under class III or class IV as found suitable by the authorities. However, the claim has been rejected in arbitrary manner without assigning any reason. Sri N. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has sought to defend this order by placing the Circular dated 21st May, 1977 and para 12 of the counter affidavit. In the circular as well as in para 12 of the counter affidavit, the requirements for giving preference on compassionate grounds have been given but as the impugned order does not mention any deficiency suffered by petitioner no. 2 in establishing his claim, the order cannot be sustained. The substantial requirements for such claim are that the claimant may be dependent of the employee dying in harness, they may be destitute and may be qualified for the post on which he sought to be appointed. All these necessary ingredients are present in the case of the petitioners and, in my opinion, they are entitled for favourable consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents cannot be permitted to supplement the order by giving reasons, now. This position has been made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mahendra Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further given guidelines for considering such claims in the case Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976. Considering the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected in mechanical manner as has been done by means of the impugned order dated 2nd September, 1989. For the reasons recorded above it is a fit case that the respondents may be directed to give employment to the petitioner no. 2 Amar Singh Arya on a post for which he may be found fit in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;