IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.63 of 2006 UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus RANJIT RAM ----------- 04- 25.7.2008 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra for opposite party no.1. The Union of India has filed this application for review of the order dated 20.9.2004, passed by a Division Bench in CWJC No. 11437 of 2004 (Ranjeet Ram vs. Union of India & Others), challenging the order dated 12.8.2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in OA No.394 of 2004 (Ranjeet Ram vs. Union of India), whereby the O.A. was rejected on the ground of delay in approaching the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant before the Tribunal preferred the writ petition which has been substantially allowed, and the authorities have been directed to consider and favourably dispose of the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced elaborate submissions in support of their respective cases. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner’s father was in the services of the Indian Railway, and died on 21.1.1996 while on duty in a train accident near East Cabin, Akbarnagar. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the same year. He was born on 22.9.1972. It - 2 - further appears that the Railways took the decision rejecting the application for compassionate appointment which was communicated by letter dt. 27.2.1998, and served on him on 2.3.2004. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the Original Application on the ground that the applicant had approached the Tribunal belatedly. The writ petition has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, whereby the High Court disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal on the question of delay. It appears from the order that the delay is attributable to the authorities, and the applicant approached the Tribunal soon after the order of rejection was served on him. The High Court then proceeded to observe as follows : “………In that view of the matter, it is a fit case where the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered in terms of the policy decision of the railway. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12 August 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the application is allowed with a direction to the respondent –railways to consider and dispose of the matter favourably within two months from today.” The earlier portion of the order extracted hereinabove does not reconcile with the later portion of the order. Once a direction has been given to the authorities to consider the petitioner’s case as per the policy decision, there should not have been the direction to consider the same favourably which amounts to issuance of a mandaus. In our considered view, we find fault with the second part of the order and is an error apparent on the face of the order. 3. Furthermore, law is well settled by a long line of cases that appointment on compassionate ground is a back-door entry, - 3 - and the courts have by and large set their faces against such appointments. Public employment in the country is a national wealth, and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same. It is, therefore, essential that any public vacancy should be widely notified so that every citizen is aware of the vacancy and gets an opportunity for consideration of his case in the selection process among others. Another reason why the courts have not much approved of such an appointment is that it is based on descent. Appointment on compassionate ground militates against the established principles. However, the courts have approved appointment on compassionate ground on limited grounds. It would be possible where the employer has formulated a well-conceived policy for its uniform application. Secondly, law is equally well settled that the sole purpose for appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the family which is left high and dry in life on account of the demise of the bread-earner of the family. It, therefore, automatically follows that once delay sets in, law presumes that the family has been able to tide over the crisis and the need for compassionate appointment has come to an end. Furthermore, appointment on compassionate ground is not available if the family of the deceased employee has had sufficient means to take care of the family in the wake of the demise of the bread-winner of the family. 4. There is one more error apparent on the face of the Division Bench, namely, the petitioner did not venture to satisfy the court whether or not a policy decision has been formulated by the - 4 - Railways and is in place. Inspite of our repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to bring to our notice any such document forming part of the writ proceedings or the present review petition. 5. We are thus of the view that there are two errors apparent on the face of the order of the Division Bench. There is no material on record to show that the Railways have formulated a policy for appointment on compassionate ground. Secondly, the two parts of the order extracted hereinabove are irreconcilable. Once the matter has been directed to be considered by the authorities as per the policy decision, there cannot be a direction to “ …dispose of the matter favourably…” which amounts to issuance of a mandamus. In that view of the matter, we delete the second part of the order extracted hereinabove whereby direction has been given to the Railways to dispose of the matter favourably. The respondent authorities shall consider the petitioner’s case as per the policy decision of the Railways, if any. They shall examine, and keep in mind, the petitioner’s case that his father had died while on duty. In the facts and circumstances of this case, delay if any, shall not come in the applicant’s way. 6. This application is accordingly disposed of with the - 5 - aforesaid modification in the order dated 20.9.2004, passed in CWJC No.11437 of 2004. ( S K Katriar ) ( S N Hussain) mrl.