M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) - The Chandigarh Administration has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 10.3.2011 (P -1) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') directing it to consider the case of the applicant - respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground on out of turn basis.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant -respondent No. 1, Shri Sandeepan Kumar was working as an Assistant Lineman in the Electricity Department, U.T. Chandigarh. On 14.8.2008, he died in harness. After five months thereafter his mother also expired. The deceased left behind him his widow and two minor children and an old aged father. The applicant - respondent has alleged that her husband was the only bread earner of the family and he expired due to the negligence of a Junior Engineer, who had switched on the power supply. It has come on record that on 15.8.2008, a meeting was convened at the Government Medical Hospital, Sector 16, which was attended by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh and other officers of the Electricity Department. It was decided in the said meeting to recommend the name of the applicant -respondent No. 1 and as a special case to provide her compassionate appointment in relaxation of the policy as the family was in a very bad financial position (A -1). On 18.8.2008, the Superintending Engineer, Electricity, 'Op' Circle, UT Chandigarh, sent her case for compassionate appointment in relaxation of the policy dated 9.10.1998. However, she was appointed as a Peon on contract basis only instead of offering her regular appointment. On 17.11.2008, the applicant -respondent No. 1 made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds on regular basis. On 16.9.2009, the Common Committee on Compassionate Appointment considered her case and she was recommended for appointment against a Group -D post. Accordingly, her name was included in the waiting list prepared by the petitioner department for filling up the vacancies under the 5% quota of compassionate appointment on first -cum -first serve basis. Her name figures at Sr. No. 23 of the said list. Eventually, the applicant -respondent No. 1 filed Original Application No. 1073/CH/2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the prayer made by the applicant -petitioner by observing as under: - "6. It is apparent from the material on record that the husband of the applicant had died on active duty and her name was recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds, as a special case. In the list of incumbents waiting for appointment on compassionate grounds, the name of the applicant is mentioned at Sr. No. 14 as on 31.7.2010 and extension has been given for one more year. The respondents themselves admit that the case of the applicant was recommended for appointment as a special case by the competent authority i.e. Chief Engineer, in relaxation of the instructions in force. The respondents recognise that case of applicant is hard one and to mitigate the suffering of the deceased family, it was recommended that the applicant may be appointed against class IV post in relaxation of instructions. Two posts of peon are vacant in the Electricity Wing since 30.6.2008 which were sent to the Screening Committee for approval. However, the Chief Engineer, in response to the proposal approval for applicant's appointment on regular basis, accorded approval for her appointment on contract basis only as a Peon. The deceased was only 41 years old when he died while carrying out electricity repair work. He left behind two minor children and applicant who is 38 years of age. This Court was informed that at present the name of the applicant is mentioned at Sr. No. 6 of the waiting list. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that once the case of the applicant has been treated by the respondents themselves as a special and isolated one and the same has been recommended in relaxation of the rules and instructions, in such eventuality, even if the applicant is below in the waiting list, the respondents are supposed to consider her case out of turn for appointment on compassionate grounds on regular basis as was also recommended by the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure R -1."
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court is required in the view taken by the Tribunal, warranting admission of the instant petition. It may be true that compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread winner. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, 2004(4) S.C.T. 724 : (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal, 1997(1) S.C.T 329 : JT 1996 (9) SC 197. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. But at the same time facts of each case have to be taken care of as has been done by the Tribunal in the present case. It has come on record that the petitioner department itself has recommended the case of the applicant -respondent No. 1 for compassionate appointment as a special case in relaxation of the rules and instructions on the issue. It has remained an undisputed fact that the husband of the applicant -respondent No. 1 died while carrying out the repair work due to the negligence of the Junior Engineer. Not only this she has been given appointment on the post of Peon but on contract basis. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to consider her case on out of turn basis, which otherwise is at Sr. No. 6 of the list prepared for the purpose. In the totality of the circumstances, we refrain ourselves from interfering with the view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;