7 hours ago
Compassionate employment: SC says scheme to address indigence of family; denies relief to man whose father left him two houses, 33 acres
Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The
Supreme Court
on Tuesday said compassionate employment to kin of a government employee dying in harness was to prevent penury for the family and denied this to a young man whose father had left behind two residential houses, 33 acres of agricultural land and a family pension of Rs 85,000 per month.
A partial working day bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan dismissed the plea of one Ravi Kumar Jeph, whose father had died in August 2015 while working as principal commissioner (Central Excise), who had sought compassionate employment in the office of the chief commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Jaipur zone), Rajasthan.
The Central Administrative Tribunal and Rajasthan High Court had both dismissed Jeph's plea for compassionate employment, upholding the department's stand that the family had adequate resources to live comfortably.
The departmental committee examined the cases of 19 applicants for compassionate employment and recommended the recruitment of only three of the most deserving candidates. The department had said that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that claims for such employment were considered in only those cases where the families faced indigence.
Rejecting Jeph's request for compassionate employment, the committee had said that 'family of deceased govt servant comprise of his wife, daughter and a son.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
Both the son and daughter are unmarried and unemployed. The family has a residential house in the village, 33 acres of agricultural land, a HIG house in Jaipur… Family is getting Rs 85,000 as monthly pension. The monthly income of the family appears to be sufficient for livelihood as well as fulfilment of social obligations'.
On compassionate employment, the SC has repeatedly ruled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and the candidates must fulfill the criteria laid down for such appointments.
'No aspirant has a right to compassionate employment,' it had said.
The SC had said, 'Indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
'
