AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds by giving the following reasons to grant such a relief :
The petitioner is the widow of S. Ramaprasad who was working as a Deputy Regional Manager of the Respondent-Organization. He was appointed on 28.2.1991 and his appointment was confirmed on 27.2.1992. While he was in service, he met with an accident and died on 31.12.1992 at Manipal Hospital at Bangalore leaving behind the petitioner and a son aged about 13 years. During his life-time, he was provided with a residential accommodation by the respondents. The petitioner and her son are still staying therein. The petitioner is a Science graduate. As Ramaprasad who was the only bread-earner in the family died while he was in service, the petitioner thought fir to seek employment on compassionate grounds, so that herself and her child can manage to live. Accordingly, she gave a representation to the respondents requesting them to appoint her on any suitable job on compassionate grounds. Her case was recommended by the Regional Manager in his letter dated 18.1.1993 to the Executive Director of the Respondent-Organization at New Delhi. But, to her surprise her request was turned down by the order dated 2.4.1993 on the ground that no suitable post was available. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises by the end of 30.6.1993 by the letter dated 22.6.1993.
It is now contended by Smt. Bhuvana Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents are not justified in turning down the petitioner''s request to appoint her on compassionate grounds. Where her case was recommended by the Regional Manager that too when there was vacancy in the Regional Office and she is duly qualified, the stand taken by the respondents is quite evasive. The fact that her husband Ramaprasad died while he was in service leaving behind the petitioner and her son was not disputed and therefore the respondents should have appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds on any suitable post. Further, according to the learned counsel, for the petitioner, the notice at Annexure-B calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises is again quite incorrect and it shows that the respondents are bent upon throwing out her without considering her case for appointment on humanitarian ground. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein it is held as follows :
"We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."
Thus contending, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
The respondents filed detailed Statement of Objections and Additional Statement of Objections denying the claim of the petitioner, Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that there is no merit in the case pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, appointment on compassionate ground is required to be made only when the dependents lost their bread-earned and have no means of livelihood. Whereas, in the instant case the petitioner is well-placed in society. The petitioner received the following amounts on account of her husband Ramaprasad :
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Date of Amount (Rs.) On account of Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 18.6.1993 1,00,165/- Death Claim of LIC 24.6.1993 16,963/- C.P.F. 05.7.1993 18,600/- Gratuity." ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramaprasad was working in the Coffee Board before joining the services of the Respondent-Organization. From the Coffee Board, the petitioner got Rs. 12,469/- towards retirement gratuity and Rs. 69,817/- towards Commutation. Apart from the liquid cash the petitioner received, now she is entitled to inherit the following assets :
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "1. 60 x 40 site bearing No. 630, 4th Block, Rs.10,00,000/- Koramangala, Bangalore-54 (with foundation already laid out). Copy of the submission of immovable property return submitted to ITPO on 6.7.1992 by late Shri S. Ramaprasad is enclosed. The present market value of plot is approximately: 2. 30 x 40 site bearing No. 426, 8th A Main, Hennur- Rs. 2,00,000/- Banaswadi layout I, Bangalore 33 vide Letter of Allotment No. 976 dated 2.3.1985. 3. 30 x 40 site bearing No. 590 (old No. 81) at Rs. 1,00,000/- Kempapura, Hebbal, Bangalore North Taluk, allotted by Coffee Employees'' Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Bangalore, as per details ascertained from Coffee Board Society''s records. Present market value of the plot is approximately: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that apart from the above assets and liquid cash, late Ramaprasad owned a house at Hosur from where he was getting rent and also he owned agricultural lands. Now these items are also to be inherited by the petitioner and her son. Added to these, the petitioner gets a family pension of Rs. 2,500/- per month and the petitioner is entitled to get such pension from January, 1993. Therefore, the petitioner is in an affluent position and her case for appointment on compassionate grounds does not require to be considered. Appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship that has been caused to a family on account of the death of bread-earner. In the instant case, the death of the petitioner''s husband Ramaprasad has not resulted in any hardship to the petitioner and her son except separation. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds as there is no such scheme existing in the Organisation. Further, the decision relied upon by the application to the for the petitioner has no application to the present case. According to him, that was a case where the employer rejected the application as belated. Thus arguing, Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petition be dismissed.
From the facts narrated above and the arguments advanced, it is clear that Ramaprasad, husband of the petitioner, died when he was working as the Deputy Regional Manager of the Respondent-Organization. He was the only earning member in the family consisting the petitioner and the son. The monetary benefits the petitioner received and the assets as demonstrated by Sri Shylendra Kumar are disputed by the other side. Regarding the assets either owned or inherited by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the same are in dispute. Now the question for consideration is whether the appointment on compassionate grounds can be granted even in a case where the person seeking appointment is financially sound and, when there is no scheme, whether it is proper for the employer to create supernumerary post and appoint a dependent of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. The idea behind appointment on compassionate grounds is to see that the dependents shall not feel the hardship created by the death of the bread-earner and also that they do not feel that they are not secure. Giving appointment on compassionate grounds is to induce confidence in an indirect way in the minds of the members of the family of the deceased so that they can lead a peaceful life. Any amount of compensation received in terms of money will not console the separated party; particularly when the dependent is educated and unemployed, the void created by the death of any spouse will definitely affect the mind of the other and that can be avoided if such person is put in action and keeping such person busy. This can be done only by providing appointment. If Ramaprasad was alive, the respondents would not have terminated him or dispensed with his services. On the other hand the respondents would have continued his services unless terminated on sufficient grounds. There is no statute as such which says that if an employee died while in service, one of his dependents shall be appointed on compassionate grounds. But, only in order to ameliorate the problems of the family in distress and purely on humanitarian grounds most of the Departments or Organisations owned by the State or the Central Government created the scheme of appointments on compassionate grounds. Normally, objections are put forth saying that posts are not available or no posts are sanctioned. In such circumstances, Courts directed to create supernumerary posts to appoint a person on compassionate grounds. This presupposes the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. In my view, the contention that the petitioner has received the financial benefits which she is otherwise legitimately entitled to receive owing to her husband''s death is not a ground to disentitle her to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. There was no reason for the authorities concerned to reject the petitioner''s request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Before parting with the case, one more circumstance in favour of the petitioner is that her case was earlier recommended by the Regional Manager which fact points out that the petitioner is qualified and the Regional Office is in need of an assistant.
For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the order at Annexure-A is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on any suitable post within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Regarding the occupation of the residential premises by the petitioner and her son, Smt. Bhuvana Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as soon as the petitioner gets a job on compassionate grounds or she gets suitable alternative accommodation, whichever earlier, the petitioner is prepared to vacate the premises. This submission is placed on record.
Whether the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits or not is not a point to be considered now. When the petitioner has chosen appointment on compassionate grounds, it is not open for the respondents to refuse the appointment.