Geeta Devi v. UOI & Ors

SUNIL GAUR, J.

¶1Petitioner's husband was a Chowkidar with the Respondent – Board on regular basis and he had died in harness on 17th May, 2004. On 10th June, 2004, Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate basis on the available vacancy in the Group-D employees of the Respondent - Board vide application (Annexure-F). Page 2

¶2It is the case of the Petitioner that despite the Representation/ several reminders by the Petitioner, there is no response from the Respondents.

¶3In this petition, direction is sought to the Respondents to consider sympathetically the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis on any available vacancy. In response to this petition, Respondent – Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt., in its counter affidavit, has taken a stand that the Ministry of Defence has intimated that the ceiling of 5% prescribed for compassionate appointment in the Scheme is based upon ruling of the Apex Court and it cannot be relaxed in any case.

¶4Respondent No. 1 and 2, in their counter affidavit, have relied upon Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th May 2003, which prescribes the ceiling of 5% quota in the direct recruitment and the time limit of three years for making appointment on compassionate ground. In the additional affidavit of 1st May, 2009, filed by the Respondent – Board, the details of the compassionate appointments made from 1st January, 2004 have been given. Another additional affidavit of 29th July, 2009, has been filed by Respondent - Board wherein it has been stated that the quota of 5% in direct recruitment on the Class IV posts stands already exhausted, as four appointments on compassionate basis, as per the seniority, has been Page 3

made in the year 2004 and thereafter, till date, no appointment on compassionate ground has been made by the Respondent - Board.

¶5After filing of the aforesaid additional affidavits, by the Respondent - Board, a rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner, wherein there is no challenge to the Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th May 2003, filed alongwith the additional affidavit by Respondent - Board.

¶6The plea put forth on behalf of the Petitioner, in substance, is that explanation given by the Respondents to deny appointment on compassionate ground to the Petitioner is untenable as the same is contrary as Respondent No. 3 had recommended Petitioner's case, whereas its rejection by Respondent No. 1 and 2 is the usual bureaucratic manner, which is unjustified. However, Respondents negate the aforesaid plea by asserting that Petitioner's case was not recommended but was merely forwarded to the contesting Respondents.

¶7After having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record and the decision of the Apex Court in "Union of India vs. Joginder Sharma", 2002 (7) SCALE 141, referred to in Communication (Annexure R-3/3), this Court finds that there is no challenge to the Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th May 2003 by the Petitioner, and therefore, the relief prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. Page 4

¶8In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed with the observation that it will be open to the Petitioner to raise a challenge the aforesaid Office Memorandum No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D) dated the 5th May 2003 and then to seek the relief as prayed for herein.

¶9No costs.

Sunil Gaur, J. September 15, 2009 pkb

Page 1 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : September 04, 2009 Judgment delivered on : September 15, 2009 + % Geeta Devi ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain and Ms. Sonia Aggarwal, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Ms. Raman Oberoi, Sr. Panel Counsel for Union of India Mr. R. Nanavaty, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?