IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6297 of 2010 1. Santosh Kumar S/O Late Ram Sohawan Sharma R/O Vill.- Radhil, P.S.- Telhara (Ekangar Sarai), Distt.- Nalanda At Biharshariff Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The High Court Of Judicature At Patna Through Registrar General Patna High Court, Patna 3. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna 4. The Registrar (Administration) Patna High Court, Patna 5. The District & Session Judge Nalanda At Biharshariff 6. The Incharge Judge, Administration Civil Court Nalanda At Biharshariff 7. The Registrar Civil Court, Nalanda At Biharshariff 3/ 13/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Court. The petitioner is the son of Late Ram Suhaban Sharma who died in harness on 28.7.2008 while holding a class 3 post in the Nalanda Judgeship. The petitioner as the eldest son of the deceased submitted an application for compassionate appointment which was considered by the committee constituted for the purpose on 29.8.2009 and rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment on compassionate grounds is to be regulated by the policy governing the same. While a claim for compassionate appointment may not lie beyond a policy, the benefit cannot be denied on materials outside the policy equally. There cannot be 2 two standards for applying the policy, one with regard to those deceased in government service and the other deceased in service of the Court or the subordinate courts. The policy of the State Government does not provide any limitations based on other sources of income to the family of the deceased to deny the benefit as also confirmed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Every family of a deceased has some source or the other of income and if that were to be a relevant consideration, compassionate appointment may become an exercise in futility. Such an interpretation must necessarily be avoided. The consideration by the Committee does not deal with issues like the size of the family, the minors who will need expenses for education. The pensionary resources are meager. The sources of funds detailed in the Committee Report are not correct. The Committee deliberations themselves state that no other family member is in service. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ application to submit that the deliberations of the Committee are considered and reasoned and the Court may not interfere with the same. An additional objection has been raised on behalf of the Court that the petitioner has not come with very 3 clean hands when he alleges that he has not been told the reasons for rejection of his claim, but in fact the deliberations of the Committee have been communicated to him as evident from the letter of the Court dated 1.2.2010 at Annexure-R/24. The petitioner has not denied the same by a rejoinder. Relief may be denied to a litigant if he does not come with clean hands. To allege that no grounds for rejection had been communicated is a serious matter which may per se render an order arbitrary without requiring further investigation. The furnishing of reasons may become crucial during judicial review to decide whether the order requires interference or not. The Court could have considered that objection as a reasonable ground to dismiss the writ application as any litigant coming to the Court has a duty to act fairly and reasonably by placing all materials and leaving the conclusion to the Court, but since the litigation relates to the Court itself, in magnanimity the Court declines that objection and proceeds to adjudicate on the merits. The deliberations of the Committee more than adequately discuss the sources of income available to the family of the deceased based on the materials furnished by the petitioner himself. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not furnished any 4 information to the Committee. The Committee had no source of information and it is not required to carry out an enquiry to ascertain the sources of income. The occasion for an enquiry may or may not arise if the Committee had any doubts on the materials furnished by the petitioner. The size of the family, to the mind of the Court, cannot be a relevant consideration to decide a claim for compassionate appointment. If that were to be so, it would become a subjective matter to vary in its application from family to family depending on its size. The Court therefore considers that to be a completely irrelevant aspect. From the details of the family discussed in the report, the Court finds that the petitioner himself was 28 years old and married. If he was already married on the date of death of his father, surely, he must have thought of his own sources of income before taking on the responsibilities of another human being and the family that may have followed. He could not have been laid back ensconed in the belief of a waiting claim for compassionate appointment following the death of his father. Likewise, his younger brother is also married. The same reasoning would apply to him also. The wives of the petitioner and his brother certainly would not constitute a burden for them to seek compassionate appointment as it is their 5 moral responsibility to look after their wives. The married daughter of the deceased does not constitute a part of the family liability. If the deceased left behind two able bodied adult sons, surely, they have the responsibility to look after the mother after the father’s death and it is not for them to contend that but for the compassionate appointment they are not in a position to look after their mother. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial review will not sit as an appellate authority over the consideration done by the Committee, but shall only examine if the Committee acted reasonably and fairly to arrive at a decision on basis of materials placed before it. If it did not take any material into consideration, or took into consideration materials behind the back of the petitioner to deny him relief, the issue may have been different. The contention that Item-F is not discernible from where the Committee got the information that there was an annual income of Rs.30,000/- from immovable properties is not acceptable for reasons already discussed that the information was furnished by the petitioner himself as discussed in the order. The Court may also interfere if it finds that the discussion and the conclusion arrived at was so unreasonable that no person of common understanding with reasonable 6 prudence may have arrived at such a conclusion. The Court does not find it possible to arrive at any such conclusion. The sources of income of the family considered by the Committee are as follows:- A. Family Pension: Rs. 5963/-P.M. comes to Rs.71,556/- per annum. B. Gratuity : Rs.3,50,000/- which has been received by the family of deceased employee. C. Deceased employee Ramsohawan Sharma’s contribution to the provident fund : Rs. 5000/- P.M. D. Proceeds of L.I.C. Policy and other Investment of the deceased employee Ramsohawan Sharma: Rs.1,70,910 has been received by the family member of the deceased employee from proceeds of L.I.C. Policy. E. Landed property of family of the deceased employee: 1 acre 86-1/4 decimals agricultural land. F. Other income of family of the applicant or deceased employee from other sources: Rs.30,000/- per annum from landed immovable properties. G. Employment of other family members: No family member is employed in any institution as information given by the applicant. The counter affidavit of the court adequately discloses in addition to the deliberations of the 7 Committee relying upon more than one judgement of the Apex Court that if the family had adequate sources of income and it was not under destitute and penury, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This Court does not find any reason to take a view different from that urged in the counter affidavit. The contention that in absence of any policy the economic condition was not a relevant consideration for denying compassionate appointment does not appeal to this Court. A compassionate appointment on a post in government service is an exception to the normal rule for selection and appointment in accordance with Article-14 of the Constitution by open advertisement and merit selection. Employment in government service is a national wealth, opportunity for which has to be made available to all eligible. Each time that a compassionate appointment is made not only Article-14 stands violated, but Article-16 of the Constitution providing for equal opportunity in matters of public employment prohibiting discrimination on grounds of descent also stands violated because another applicant may not have had the benefit of being the descendent of a deceased. However, the Courts have permitted a limited inroad into that liberty, but which 8 necessarily has to be reserved for extreme cases where survival may itself become a serious question by reason of the sudden death of the bread winner. Holding the objective assessment by the authorities with regard to the financial condition of the family of the deceased as a ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment the Supreme Court in (2006) 7 SCC 350 (Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh) at Paragraph-37 as follows:- “37………..It is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family……” The Court on consideration of the aforesaid factors, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and evidence and deliberations of the Committee which are otherwise well reasoned and considered in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)