Gayathri vs Managing Director, Ksrtc

Saldanha, J.—Heard Counsel on both sides. These three Writ Petitions raise a common point namely the issue as to whether in the case of an employee whose services with the respondent-Corporation have come to a premature end by virtue of a health or accidental disability they would be entitled to claim compassionate employment for some other eligible member of the family. The dates in question are not of much consequence but the common factor in all these three Writ Petitions is the fact that pursuant to a health situation having arisen whereby on examination, it was found that the respective petitioners were not in a position to carry out their duties with the respondent-Corporation, an order was passed voluntarily retiring them. Subsequently, applications were made on the ground that their cases were virtually on par with those where the bread winner of the family has died while in service and that therefore, one of the dependent children should be employed by the respondent-Corporation. Obviously, the principle sought to be canvassed was that under normal circumstances, the employee would have served with the Corporation for some years and that as a result of the disability that has arisen even if it was not a situation where the employee has died that it is almost on par with that in so far as his services are prematurely at an end. The consequences to the family would be, more or less identical. It is contended that the principles under which compassionate employment is offered to a member of the family in the case of death or in the case of a permanent disability as specified within the meaning of the Corporation''s Scheme, must apply to these Cases also.

Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the terms of a Settlement that has been entered into by the Corporation where by there is a reference to the fact that in situations such as these, the matter would be refereed to a Board which would consider awarding gratuity of a higher amount to the employee taking into consideration the fact that the Corporation deems that he would have in fact worked upto his normal date of superannuation. Those references provide for refund of the additional amount in the event of an eligible member of the family being employed by the respondent-Corporation. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on parity with this principle, that the respondents have wrongly denied compassionate employment to members of the petitioner''s family and that this Court ought to direct the respondent-Corporation to provide such employment. The whole argument proceeds on the footing that these cases are absolutely on par with those where a death has occurred or where a total permanent disability of the type specified in the Scheme has taken place.

On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, replies have been filed wherein the contention is that the petitioners in these Cases stand on an entirely different footing in so far as they have been voluntarily retired because of an certain health condition which precluded their continuing with their duties. It is also submitted, that the Scheme formulated by the Corporation which encompasses only a certain category of cases cannot be extended by this court nor can it be stretched. Reliance was also placed on several Judicial Decisions including observations of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein the Supreme Court had occasions to observe that the normal channels of employment cannot be virtually closed or to a very large extent constricted merely because on all sorts of grounds, persons claiming employment on the basis that they come under the umbrella of compassionate employment. Basically, it is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that due to the unfortunate position in which the petitioners were placed, that they had to give them the option of voluntary retirement and that they are entitled to the terminal benefits in that eventuality, I need to point out here that if in keeping with any Settlement or any other provisions, the petitioners if are entitled to any higher amounts than what they have in fact received, and if they file an application justifying any such higher payments, the Corporation will examine the application fairly and in keeping with the Regulations applicable to that particular employee and any Settlement if the same was in force at that time.

The real crux of the matter is the question as to whether the cases of the present three petitioners can be totally equated with the situation in which the Corporation provides for compassionate employment to a dependent under the Corporation''s Scheme. It is more than abundantly clear to me on an examination of this Scheme that the limited classes of cases in which such compassionate employment is provided for are those which are very clearly specified. It is true, that the Corporation has formulated a Scheme in cases of sudden death and has extended this Scheme to certain categories of cases where a total disability arises due to accident etc. which has been considered to be on par with the former. This does not mean that in the case of an employee who for other reasons namely on health grounds is required to leave the services of the Corporation that the aforesaid Scheme can be applicable.

Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has relied on a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1994 I CLR 627) Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court referred to the principle embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution and held that on the facts of that particular case, the employer ought to have fond some alternate employment for the employee who had suffered a serious disability due to an operation. The Supreme Court also held that some of the requirements for that position ought to be relaxed. As far as the present set of Cases are concerned, to my mind, the aforesaid Decision of the Supreme Court would have no application at all. We are here concerned with Cases of employees whose services have come to an end because of their health condition. Under the existing Regulations of the Corporation, there is no Scheme where by employees of this category can claim compassionate employment for a dependent as a matter of right. In the event of such a Scheme having been in force or in the event of the employees having been eligible and the respondents having deprived them unjustifiably of their benefits, intervention from this Court would have been justified. In the present set of Cases that is not the position.

Having regard to this situation, the Petitions fail and stand dismissed.