In a judgement that is likely to have wider ramifications, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the dependents of a Government employee are not entitled to a job on compassionate grounds if they can sustain themselves financially for the first three years after the death of the employee.
According to the court, in such a case it is obvious that the family can manage on its own without additional resources.
The court’s judgement came while allowing a petition by the Delhi Government challenging a CAT order on a Government job for Vikas, who had lost his father in 2005.
Vikas’s father was a public servant who died after a few years of service in 2005. He was a minor when his father died and his mother did not seek a Government job at that time. Five years after the death of his father, Vikas became a major and he sought a Government job on compassionate grounds. On being denied an appointment, Vikas approached the CAT in 2010 and won the case.
Recently the Delhi High Court had also passed a judgement to the effect that getting a Government job on compassionate grounds is “not an absolute right of the claimant.”
Setting aside the tribunal’s order, the division bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao said: “The finances with the family on the death of a Government servant would be a very relevant factor in determining who gets appointment on compassionate grounds.”
“A widow with minor children to support, who is getting a meager family pension and meager death-cum-terminal dues because her husband died after rendering a few years of service would obviously be give preference over a claim made by a major son of a deceased employee. This is because, in the latter case, the years of service put in by the employee with major children would be more, and the family pension, together with interest income which may accrue to the family due to death-cum-terminal benefits paid would be enough for the family to sail through,” the court said
The Delhi Government through its Chief Secretary approached the High Court against the tribunal’s order on the grounds that there are a large number of claimants for Government jobs and each case was considered on its merits.
The bench relied on the Government’s contention that Vikas’s family had received over Rs 10 lakh as death-cum-terminal benefits along with a pension of Rs 4,200 immediately after the death of his father.
Ruling against Vikas’s entitlement for the job, the High Court said: “A very large number of candidates had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and relative comparable hardship was seen in each case to draw up a panel of those who would be granted compassionate appointment.”