R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Petitioner claims death cum retiral benefits and for appointment of her son on compassionate ground saying that her husband is traceless since 5.7.1998.
(2.) THE stand of the respondents is that it is to be seen as to which legal heirs of petitioner's husband is entitled to receive death cum retiral benefits. Though counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no provision for compassionate appointment, but it is said in the counter affidavit that it will be considered as per the rules and regulations. - - Admittedly, petitioner and her family survived for all these nine years. It has been held in : [1994]3SCR893 Umesh Kumar Nagpal that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; and that such appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of : AIR2006SC2743 State of J and K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reads as follows: We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to give any direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner's son on compassionate ground.
(3.) SO far as death cum retiral benefits are concerned the same could not be paid till the period of presumption about the death of petitioner's husband i.e. seven years was over. Now when the said period is over, the respondents are directed to see that the death cum retiral benefits including the statutory interest, if any, is paid to the petitioner/other legal heirs/persons entitled to get, in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of completion of formalities, if any, in that regard.;