1 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0. 2915/2006 Rajesh Chauhan v. Union of India & ors. Date of order : 17.04.2007 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.N.JHA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Shri M.A.Siddiqui , for the petitioner Shri V.K.Mathur for the respondents This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 12.10.2004 in OA no. 86/2004 rejecting the original application of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Facts of the case, briefly, are that on 18.10.1995 father of the petitioner, Ramdeen Chauhan, died while in employment of the Department of Posts on the post of Postal Assistant. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on his death sometime in 1996. His case was recommended by the Post Master General, Rajasthan . On 11.10.1996 the committee decided to appoint the petitioner but the decision could not be implemented as post was not available. The petitioner however was kept in the waiting list. In 2001 posts of Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) became available and in the circumstances on 25.7.2001 the Department issued direction to offer the post to the wait listed candidates. Accordingly on 6.9.2001 2 consent of the petitioner was sought by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagaur. The petitioner did not respond to the offer. He later filed the original application after about three years in 2004. The application was rejected by the impugned order. He has now come to this Court seeking direction for compassionate appointment. The petitioner did not accept the offer of appointment on the post of GDS; apparently he was wary of the post being inferior in status. It was submitted before us that the petitioner is now willing to accept any post. We are afraid, it is too late for the petitioner to change his mind and respond to the offer. The offer of compassionate appointment on a particular post is often not accepted by the person as he thinks the post to be below his dignity or educational qualification and social status. Dealing with such a case in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Supreme Court observed : “If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.” We do not wish to go further into this aspect of the matter as before this Court the counsel took an unequivocal stand that petitioner is prepared to accept the post of GDS or any other post which may be offered to him. 3 The object of compassionate appointment, as is well settled by series of decisions of the Supreme Court, is to provide financial help to the family of the deceased employee so that members of the family are able to meet the sudden financial crisis caused by the unexpected and pre-mature death of the bread winner. It has been emphasised that the scheme of compassionate appointment is not an employment oriented scheme in the sense that in every case of government servant dying in harness one of his dependant must be appointed on compassionate ground. Where the family is able to survive without compassionate appointment for a long time, the relevance and justification for such appointment comes to an end. It is to be kept in mind that compassionate appointment is basically an exception to the rule of equality under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The scheme nevertheless has been upheld as being recognition of the past services rendered by the deceased government servant, but, being in the nature of exception to the rule, it has to be strictly applied. As mentioned above, father of the petitioner died in October, 1995, that is , twelve years ago. Notwithstanding the passage of time he was offered appointment on the post of GDS in 2001 which he did not accept. He approached the Tribunal after three years. We do not think, any direction can be issued for compassionate appointment at this stage. 4 We thus do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. (S.N.JHA), C.J. mathur/