RAM AVTAR S/O SHRI DHANI RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMUNICATION dated 25.10.2005 rejecting applicant's request for grant of appointment in Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) on compassionate grounds has been challenged in present OA. A direction is also sought to respondents to appoint his younger son Shri Raj Kishore on such compassionate basis with consequential benefits.

(2.) Applicant's son late Sh. Gokul Prasad joined as Constable, Delhi Police in the year 1993. It is stated that after availing leave, while he was proceeding to join his duties and had been traveling in train to Delhi on 10.6.1996, some miscreants tried to loot the passengers in train and his son being a disciplined and dutiful cop tried to prevent miscreants from committing the crime. They being more in number threw him out in moving train and, therefore, he laid down his life for the cause of society. His dead body was recovered on railway track near Hathras railway station. He was unmarried and the only bread earner of the family. In these circumstances, applicant requested Delhi Police officials to appoint his younger son Sh. Raj Kishore on compassionate grounds, which request had been rejected vide order dated 21.09.2004 and, therefore, OA No. 3005/2004 was instituted. Said OA was partly allowed vide order dated 23.8.2005 setting aside the impugned order directing respondents to re-consider the claim and passed a reasoned & speaking order. Pursuant to aforesaid directions, respondents once again rejected his request vide impugned communication dated 25.10.2005 stating that appointment on compassionate grounds can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota. A large number of applications for appointment on compassionate basis are received and Delhi Police is not in a position to appoint all the candidates who apply on such basis every year. Only a limited number of deserving persons can be offered such appointment. His case was found less deserving than the others and was rejected by the Committee. Further, applicant's son died in the year 1996 and thereafter family survived for long period of nine years, which is adequate proof that family has dependable means of subsistence.

(3.) RESPONDENTS resisted the claim laid by filing detailed reply stating that on 11.06.1996 Police Control Room, Delhi received information at 9 p.m. from the Office of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Aligarh (U.P.) that Constable Gokul Prasad expired due to fall from train in between Sikanpur Satroli and his dead body had been kept at P.S. Hathras Junction. This information was conveyed to the applicant on 12.06.1996. Since deceased's body had not been claimed by family members, same was cremated by local Police of P.S. Hathras Junction after observing all necessary formalities. The deceased Govt. servant was unmarried and, therefore, DCGR and other benefits amounting to Rs. 1,40,700/- were sanctioned in favour of applicant being father of deceased employee. Request made by applicant vide application dated 28.02.1997 for appointment on compassionate ground was examined in accordance with relevant instructions and it was found that Raj Kishore, younger son of applicant and brother of the deceased Constable was below the age of 18 years and, therefore, he could not be appointed. In the circumstances, his request was rejected vide letter dated 17.03.1997. Thereafter, another request was made in the year 2000 which was also examined in terms of DOP & T OM dated 09.10.1998 and the concerned Committee, after examining all aspects of case, rejected the request, which was conveyed to him vide letter dated 06.11.2000. A legal notice was also received on 15.02.2002 for appointment of his son on compassionate ground, which was rejected vide letter dated 29.07.2002. Being aggrieved, son of applicant, Raj Kishore (brother of deceased) filed CWP No. 2410/2003 before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, applicant filed OA No. 3005/2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2005 with direction to reconsider the claim. In compliance thereof, the Screening Committee met on 28.09.2005 and re-examined the case taking into account financial condition of family, liabilities and all other relevant factors, including the OM issued and law laid down on the said subject. After due consideration, said request was rejected and intimated to applicant vide speaking order dated 25.10.2005. It was stated that since family of the deceased has been able to survive for a long period of 9 years, which is adequate proof that family has some dependable means of subsistence and also keeping in view the fact that only limited number of vacancies are available for compassionate appointment, there is no justification in his request for appointment on compassionate ground. There is no information on record that some miscreants tried to loot the train and in the process of stopping the miscreants from committing the crime the deceased Constable laid down his life, as claimed by applicant. Reliance has been placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 4.5.1994 in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which has been reiterated & followed from time to time.