THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.1524 of 2002 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the deceased. Both of them seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not providing employment to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds as per the then existing Memorandum of Agreement and as per para 4.3 of the Memorandum of Agreement on Wage Revision with effect from 01-01-1997 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent to provide employment to the 2nd petitioner. The undisputed fact is that while Sri Md.Kamaluddin, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, was working as an Operator Grade-II in the respondent Corporation, he died on 18-11-1994. According to the petitioners, the deceased Md.Kamaluddin died while he was on duty and, therefore, the 2nd petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment as per para 4.3 of Memorandum of Agreement on Wage Revision with effect form 01-01-1997, which reads as follows:- “Appointment on Compassionate Grounds: Employment to one dependant of each workman, who is permanently disabled or dies as a result of accident while on duty, will continue to be provided as at present. Dependant for this purpose will mean spouse of the employee, his/her son or daughter or legally adopted son/daughter.” The respondent denied the said contention stating that Sri Md.Kamaluddin, who worked as vehicle operator in the respondent Corporation, expired on 18-11-1994 due to his own negligent action. As per duty roster, he has to work in “C” shift on 17-11-1994 at 22.00 hours, which comes to an end at 6.00 hours on 18-11-1994 and he was allotted ambulance meant for the Health Centre. On 17-11-1994, the deceased attended duty in “C” shift in an intoxicated condition and caused disturbance and nuisance to the doctors and staff nurses, who were on duty. The duty doctor found that the deceased was not in a condition to hear anybody or to carry out any instructions and he was in inebriated condition and was not in a position to drive the vehicle. So, the duty doctor took the key of the ambulance and asked the deceased to go home, for which he has refused and created nuisance. The duty Doctor called upon one of the Central Industrial Security Force Constable, Sri K.C.Subba Rayudu, who was posted at Health Centre, to take care of the situation and also recorded the incident in the report book. The said constable also reported about the misbehaviour of the deceased to the Sub-Inspector, CISF, who was performing night inspection. So, after giving report, the deceased was not allowed to perform duty and he was sent back to his home in CISF jeep to avoid unnecessary controversy. Subsequently, the deceased, without the knowledge of the officials, came to Health Centre with his son on a Scooter and again created nuisance with the staff on duty and drove the ambulance parked in the Hospital premises, which is meant for catering the emergencies of the plant employees, in a rash and negligent manner in early hours of 18-11-1994 and hit the ambulance to a tree situated at the back of the hospital and got caught between steering and the vehicle and died on the spot, which came to light after four hours of the accident. Thus, the deceased met with fatal accident because of his own negligent action and it is not correct that the deceased died while he was on duty. He was not on duty when he met with the accident. At the time of the death of the deceased, the 2nd petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, was only aged 15 years. Therefore, his son is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the petitioners are supposed to vacate the quarter provided by the respondent by 17-03-1995 i.e., within three months from the date of death. But, they have continued in the quarter unauthorizedly without any penal rent, and the terminal benefits were also paid without deduction of any penal rent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[1] wherein the application filed by the wife of the deceased for compassionate appointment was not considered, but the son’s application, who was minor at the time of death, was directed to be considered. The question that arises for consideration is whether the deceased died while he was on duty? According to the respondent, the deceased died due to his own negligent action and at the time of accident, he was not on duty. As the deceased died while he was not on duty, para 4.3 of Memorandum of Agreement is not applicable to the petitioners and as such, the 2nd petitioner is not entitled for any compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on various judgments of the Apex Court in HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. A.RADHIKA THIRUMALAI[2], NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS Vs. NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH[3], GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ANJU JAIN[4] and SANTHOSH KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[5]. In Santhosh Kumar’s case (5 supra), which is the latest judgment, the Apex Court held that the very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased, who has died in harness. The compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an opportunity in government service. I have considered the rival contentions. As there is a serious dispute with regard to the death of the deceased, whether he died while he was on duty or not cannot be decided in this writ petition. But, however, in the counter, it is clearly stated that it was not an accidental death, while on duty, but due to the negligent act of the deceased in unauthorisedly driving the ambulance in a rash and negligent manner and hitting the ambulance to a tree, the accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased died as a result of the accident that occurred while he was on duty. If that be so, the benefit of para 4.3 of Memorandum of Agreement is not applicable to the petitioners. As per the said clause, the dependant of the deceased workman, who dies as a result of accident, while on duty, is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The compassionate appointment is an immediate relief given to the bereaved family, but it cannot be said that same situation continues even after three years. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the 2nd petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-10-2010 Prv [1] 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1681 [2] (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 394 [3] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1155 (1) [4] (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 475 [5] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 481