Kamla Devi Urf Kamala vs Rajiv Chaudhary, General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad & Others

B.K. Shrivastava, Member J

This contempt petition has been moved for non-compliance of the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Single Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.734 of 2015. In para 10 of the aforesaid OA, the following direction was given:-

“10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the applicant continues to be wife of deceased Lalit Ram Pal, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application for appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of her husband Lalit Ram Pal while in service. The exercise shall be completed by respondents within a period of three months with information to the applicant. O.A. is disposed off accordingly. No orders as to costs.”

It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the compliance has not been made by the respondents. He cited the Union of India and others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV[(2006) 1 UPLBEC 745]. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held that in the contempt proceedings the rightness or the wrongness of the direction of the Court cannot be considered. Upon the basis of aforesaid judgment, the counsel submitted that the respondents was bound to comply with the Court’s order as-it-is, but they did not grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

First compliance affidavit was filed by the respondents on 30.05.2009. Objection against the aforesaid compliance affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2019. Thereafter, additional compliance affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 10.07.2023 and the reply to the aforesaid compliance affidavit was also filed by the applicant on 17.08.2023.

The first compliance affidavit was considered by the Court on 22.03.2023 and the following order was passed by the Court:-

“It is evident that order dated 25.04.2019 has been passed by the authority concerned denying the compassionate appointment on the ground that applicant was not dependent whereas in the judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid OA, specific observation was made that applicant continues to be the wife of the deceased Shri Lalit Rampal and thus interpreting the observation of the Tribunal in a different manner cannot be ruled as compliance of the order of the Tribunal.”

In compliance of the aforesaid order the fresh compliance affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 10.07.2023.

Along with the additional compliance affidavit the detail order dated 30.06.2023 also annexed by the respondents which runs upto 03 pages. It will be useful to refer the aforesaid order as it is:-

“NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

No. CS/DPO/CG/Class-III

Dated:30.06.2023

Manager

Railway, Prayagraj

Office of the Divisional Railway North Central

Smt. Kamla Devi urf Kamala Devi

C/O Sri Deonath Ram Pal,

Village-Vijay Nagar, behind

Khaga Railway Station

P.O-Khaga, District-Fatehpur

Sub: - Compliance of orders dated 30.10.2018 & 22.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble CAT/ALD in O.A. No. 734 of 2015 and Contempt petition No. 21/2019 in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi urf Kamala Devi Vs UOI & Others

*********************************************

Hon'ble CAT/ALD has disposed of the above O.A. on 30.10.2018 with direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the application for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of her husband Lalit Ram Pal while in service. The exercise shall be completed by respondents within a period of three months with information to the applicant.

In compliance of Hon'ble CAT/ALD order dated 30.10.2018, the then Divisional Railway Manager/North Central Railway/Allahabad had considered your application and passed reasoned & speaking order on 25.04.2019. But Hon'ble CAT/ALD vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Contempt petition No. 21/2019 in above O.A. No. 734/2015 has passed the order with the observation which is as under:

“It is evident that order dated 25.04.2019 has been passed by the authority concerned denying the compassionate appointment on the ground that applicant was not dependent whereas in the judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid OA, specific observation was made that applicant continues to be the wife of the deceased Shri Lalit Rampal and thus interpreting the observation of the Tribunal in a different manner cannot be ruled as compliance of the order of the Tribunal. Since status of the applicant were clarified by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order, respondents are hereby directed to file a fresh compliance affidavit after complying with the directions given by the Tribunal.”

In compliance of Hon'ble CAT/ALD orders dated 30.10.2018 & 22.03.2023, I have carefully re-examined your application dated 29.06.2019 and rules/guidelines governing appointment on compassionate ground, brought on record and following observations are made:-

Your husband late Lalit Ram Pal was appointed under LARSGESS Scheme on 31.8.2013 & expired on 22.03.2014.

As per WLI's report dated 12.4.2019, your marriage with late Lalit Ram Pal s/o Shri Cheddi lal was solemnized on 29.4.2004. But you willingly left the In-Law's home after 07 days of marriage. Moreover late Lalit Ram Pal never claimed any benefit like Privilege Pass or Medical facility from Railway in your favour. Further from the time of leaving In-Law's home until the death of your husband, you were living separately by mutual consent & independently taking care of yourself.

In terms of instructions contained in Railway Board's L/No. E(NG)II/98/RC-1/64 dated 06.03.2009 (RBE No. 03/2009), "it is reiterated that at the time of considering such requests for compassionate appointments, the Competent Authority should satisfy himself/herself on the basis of a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family that the grounds for compassionate appointment in each such case is justified, having regard to the number of dependants, assets and liabilities left by the Railway employee, income of any member of the family, as also his liability, including the aspect of whether the earning member is residing with the family of the deceased employee and whether he provides any support to other members of the family".

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s State of Haryana & others and Anil Malik V/s State of Haryana & others (JT 1994(3) S.C. 525) has observed that:

“.... As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit.......However, to this general rule…….there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and...One such exception is in favour of the dependents of a employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. Further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the decease, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family”.

Hon'ble Court also observed that “The consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and crises are over."

In the year 2009, Hon'ble Supreme court (Double bench) has also decided on 18.05.2009 in case of Santosh Kumar Dubey V/s State of U.P. & others in Civil Appeal No. 1955 of 2003 that:

"The very concept of given a compassionateappointment 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 that the family can tied 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, inasmuchasthevery 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 diedin harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.”

In view of the above facts and rules position explained above, it is quite evident that you willingly left the In-Law's home after 07 days of marriage and from the time of leaving In-Law’s home until the death of your husband, you were living separately by mutual consent & independently taking care of yourself. Hence, your request for appointment on compassionate ground in your favour is not tenable and is rejected.

Thus the orders dated 30.10.2018 & 22.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble CAT/ALD in O.A. No. 734 of 2015 and Contempt petition No. 21/2019 are complied with.

Sd/-

(Himansu Badoni)

Divisional Railway Manager

N. C. Railway, Prayagraj”

It appears from the aforesaid order and the entire case that in the previous OA, the status of wife was accepted by the Tribunal and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of compassionate appointment by treating the petitioner,as wife of the deceased employee. Thereafter, in the impugned order dated 30.06.2023, the department considered all the circumstances of the case and also examined the claim of the applicant in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & others and Anil Malik Vs. State of Haryana & others and Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & others.

Looking to the guidelines prescribed by various case law, the case of the petitioner has been examined by the respondents. The entire circumstances and the position of the petitioner have been taken into consideration. The department also took the note that the object of compassionate appointment is to prevent the family from sudden financial crisis. The case of the petitioner does not come in the purview of the aforesaid guidelines. She left the house of husband after only 07 days from marriage. She was not found the dependent of the husband and in the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the respondents the case of granting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner even in the capacity of wife of deceased employee is not found, therefore, the department passed the impugned order.

Hence, in view of this Court, sufficient compliance has been made and no further proceedings are required.

Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the respondents are discharged from their liability.