IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6621 of 2007 RAMESH KUMAR s/o Late S. D. Rai of village Chakakoo P O. Satpura via P S. Bhagwanpur District- Vaishali (Bihar). …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary (AF) Defence Dept. New Delhi. 2. The Chief Engineer ( AF) Pin: 900137, C/O APO. 3. The Chief Engineer, Hq. Central Command. Pin 900450, C/O APO. 4. CWE (AF) Bamrauli. 5. AGE (1) (AF), Bihta. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 01.04.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 13th March 2007 ( Annexure-1) by giving cogent reason as would be evident from the following passages of the impugned order:- “3. Accordingly, the Board of Officers has taken the various aspects as stipulated in MOD ID No. 19(4)824-D (Lab) dated 09.03.2001, such as family size including ages of children, amount of terminal benefits, amount of family pension liability in terms of unmarried daughter(s), minor children etc. Moveable/ Immovable Properties left by the deceased at the time of death, to find out the cases of acute financial distress/ most deserving case in relative merit and recommended only the really deserving cases that too only if clear vacancy 2 meant for appointment on compassionate grounds exists within the ceiling of 5% DR vacancies. Further the committee considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds has taken into account the position regarding availability of vacancy for such appointment and it has recommended appointment on compassionate grounds only in a really deserving case to vacancy meant for appointment. On compassionate grounds available within a year, that too within the ceiling of 5% Prescribed for the purpose, in view the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in judgment dated 4th May 1994 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (JT 1994 (3) SC 525) wherein it has been held that “offering appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Govt. Servant is legally impermissible and compassionate cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.” 4. According to the information available on record, the following is the position of the family of the deceased Govt. servant:- (a) The death of Govt Servant occurred on 14th June 2002 His wife, and three sons survived. The deceased Govt. servant’s family received Rs.1,54,780/-as terminal benefits and family pension Rs.2,655/- + DA. PM. (b) Family owns property worth Rs.1,00,550/- and monthly income of Rs.2,500/- PM. 3 5. Your name for compassionate appointment as Mazdoor was screened by a board of officers quarterly for last one years consequently on four occasions and finally held for QE Dec2005 held on 31 Jan 2007 taking in account all the applications received upto 31 Dec 2006 but you did not come up in the merit list for appointment as Mazdoor due to non-availability of sufficient vacancies released from CE Central Command Lucknow under 5% quota of direct recruitment vacany. 6. Therefore, after due circumstances and consideration, in the light of the enclosed guidelines of DOP & T and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right and after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case including the decision the Board of Officers at this HQ, the competent authority has rejected the employment assistant to you due to non-availability of sufficient vacancy within 5% quota. 7. As per Govt. of India MOD ID No. 19(4)/824-99/1998- D(Lab) dated 09 Mar 2001, the candidates are required to apply only once and the application if not recommended in the first Board Off Officers for want of vacancy is to be considered afresh along with the fresh applicant by the Board of Officers on three occasions consecutively and the final decision is to be communicated to the applicant by a detailed speaking order.” 4 this Court would find it difficult to interfere with such reasoning inasmuch as all of them individually or collectively would make a good ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner. Let it be noted that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it would always be open for the authority to assess the financial condition of the family and any decision for compassionate appointment will have to be strictly made as per its policy. In the present case, the Army authorities had already taken a policy decision for making appointment on compassionate ground only upto five percent of the total vacant posts and that too all such cases were to be considered by preparing and following a merit list on priority basis against such vacancies. Therefore, if the case of the petitioner was duly considered and he could not be appointed in five percent vacancies and the financial condition of the family had not been found to be one of penury, he cannot claim such appointment on compassionate ground in Indian Army as a matter of right. In that view of the matter, this Court would 5 not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)