- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.463/2005 (Vikram Singh Rathore vs. Union of India & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 10/4/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.I.R.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Dave, for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the communications Annex.3 dated 11/3/2003 and Annex.6 dated 23/8/2004 and further prayed that respondents may be directed to provide him appointment on compassionate ground at least as class IV employee w.e.f. 11/3/2003. The petitioner is son of deceased employee of respondent Department Late Shri Bheru Singh , who died while in service on 17/2/2001. The claim of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground was considered and rejected by the respondents vide Annex.3 dated 11/3/2003, so also again vide Annex.6 dated 23/8/2004 the representation of the petitioner to review the earlier order was rejected. The case of petitioner is that his father was low paid employee of the respondent Department and his application for appointment on compassionate ground was arbitrarily rejected by the respondents without considering his case in right perspective. Therefore, the action of the respondents is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is - 2 - prayed that petitioner's family is very poor and father of the petitioner had incurred a huge debt for his treatment, so also petitioner's grand mother, who is 80 years of age is also suffering from severe disease and petitioner has to bear all the expenses for her treatment and respondents while considering his case for providing compassionate appointment ignored the financial condition, whereas, other similarly situated persons, whose financial condition are much better that the petitioner, were granted appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the consideration chart filed by the respondents along with the reply in which while pointing out the case of Vijay Singhvi, who was provided appointment upon review, it is submitted that the financial condition of Vijay Singhvi is much better than the petitioner but he was provided appointment on compassionate ground while ignoring the case of petitioner. Upon perusal of the Annex.R/1-comparative chart, it is revealed that at the time of death of father of petitioner, the family of petitioner was residing in PNT Colony with the brother of deceased, whereas, Vijay Singhvi is having his own residential house and as per petitioner the said house is in Shastri Nagar, which is a posh colony of the city. Likewise, family pension of Rs.1900+DA pm was allowed in case of petitioner, whereas, family pension of Rs. 4934+DA pm was allowed in the case of - 3 - Vijay Singhvi. Likewise, one Indu Kanwar D/o Ajit Singh was also provided compassionate appointment by the Department, whose financial condition is also better than petitioner's financial condition. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the case of petitioner was considered objectively and he was not found suitable for appointment on compassionate ground. Upon perusal of comparative chart, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the fact that other persons namely Vijay Singhvi, Indu Kanwar, & Shyam Sunder were provided appointment on compassionate ground while rejecting the case of petitioner. The comparative details filed by the respondents along with reply clearly speak that petitioner's case was not rightly considered by the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground requires reconsideration by the respondents while taking into account the financial condition of petitioner's family and other relevant circumstances. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The communications Annex.3 dated 11/3/2003 and Annex.6 dated 23/8/2004 and the case is remitted to the respondents for reconsideration of petitioner's case for appointment on - 4 - compassionate ground at par with other similar cases mentioned in Annex.R/1, so also while taking into account the financial condition of the petitioner's family. The claim of petitioner for providing compassionate appointment may be decided afresh within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja