Ram Bharosi and Others vs State of Raj. and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

The petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Birji Ram, have instituted the present writ application, praying for the following relief(s):

"(I) By way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner No. 2 may be held entitled for family pension in lieu of services rendered by her husband with the respondent department.

(II) By way of issue of appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 13.3.2013 may kindly be held arbitrary and illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. Respondents may kindly be directed to grant benefit of compassionate appointment to the Petitioner No. 1 on any suitable post in place of his deceased father who died while in service of the Respondent department.

(III) By way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may kindly be held that late Shri Birji was not a part time employee and was in fact a full time employee working as Ward boy in respondent department and order dated 21.4.2011 may also be directed to be amended accordingly.

(IV) By way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of gratuity, other retiral benefits and arrears of family pension to the petitioners along with interest @12 % per annum.

(V) Any other order, which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. Late Shri Birji Ram, raised an industrial dispute, assailing the legality, validity and correctness of termination of his employment. On a failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, Bharatpur, the State Government made a reference in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the ''Act of 1947, for short). The Labour Court Bharatpur, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and the materials available on record, passed an award dated 18th December, 1995, in favour of the respondent-workman (Late Shri Birji Ram). The State-respondents challenged the legality and validity of the award made by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, in SBCWP No. 111/1997. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13th March, 2008, upholding the findings of the Labour Court, dismissed the writ application, upholding the award made by the Labour Court. The workman (Late Shri Birji Ram) also instituted Writ Application No. 7686/2005, praying for implementation of the award dated 18th December, 2005. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21st May, 2009, acceded to the prayer and directed the respondent-State to implement the award dated 18th December, 1995, within a period of two months from the date of filing of a copy of the order.

It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in compliance of the order, Late Shri Birji Ram (workman) was reinstated vide order dated 21st April, 2011; on daily wages basis, as would be evident from Annexure-4. However, Shri Birji Ram, died on 11th December, 2012. The petitioners have instituted the present writ application on 3rd June, 2013, with the prayers, as indicated above.

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that father/husband of the petitioners (Late Shri Birji Ram), was though engaged on daily wages basis but an award was made in his favour maintaining continuity of service and as a consequence was reinstated.

Referring to Notification dated 27th February, 2009, the learned counsel would submit that since the father/husband of the petitioners (Late Shri Birji Ram) had completed 10 years of service; he ought to have been considered for regularization by the screening committee. However, the State-respondents failed to carry out the necessary exercise so as to confirm the status of regular employee on Late Shri Birji Ram, and thus, the petitioners have been deprived of family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds.

Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the opinion of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Heera Lal v. The State of Raj. and Ors. (SBCWP No. 454/2012), decided on 27th May, 2014 and Mahendra Kumar Sharma v. State and Anr. (SBCWP No. 1591/1996), decided on 3rd December, 2009.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar.

From the materials available on record, it is an admitted fact that in both the cases, referred to and relied upon, the petitioners therein, were alive and their cases were not considered for regularization, and therefore, necessary directions were issued allowing the writ applications, as would be evident from the orders/judgments in the cases (supra).

Indisputably, the petitioner was not regularized and his case was never placed before the Screening Committee, as required, under the amended Rule, as contemplated in the Notification dated 27th February, 2009. Thus, Late Shri Birji Ram, was not conferred with the status of a ''regular employee'', and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, he would not be deemed to be an ''employee'' of the Government. Consequently, the claim(s) flowing therefrom pursuant to the conferment of status of an "employee" cannot be availed of.

Under the relevant recruitment Rules before one can stake his claim for family pension or appointment on compassionate grounds, the incumbent/claimant is required to be a dependent/family member and/or members of the family of the deceased government employee.

For the purpose of claim of family pension, Rule 60 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, details out its applicability thus:

"60. Applicability

The provisions of these rules shall apply to all Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of October, 1996, or who enter service on or after that date, but shall not apply to-

(a) persons paid from contingencies;

(b) work charged-staff;

(c) casual labour; and

(d) persons appointed on contract."

Similarly, under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, reads thus:

"5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:--(1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show-cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated."

From a glance of the Rules of 1996, it is evident that the provisions are applicable to the Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent, who were in service on 1st day of October, 1996, or enters service on or after date. There is specific exclusion under Rule 60 of the persons paid from contingencies; work charged-staff; casual labour; and persons appointed on contract. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, dealing with appointment on compassionate grounds again refers to "Government Servant" who dies while in service and the definition of "Deceased Government Servant", is defined under Section 2(b) of the Rules of 1996, reads thus:

"2(b)"Deceased Government Servant" means a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debitable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and who was:--

(i) Permanent, or

(ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis, and had put in at least three years continuous service including period of probation as probationer-trainee.]"

Thus, the claim of the petitioners either for family pension or for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be sustained unless Late Shri Birji Ram could not be included within the meaning of a "Deceased Government Servant".

For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of the petitioners for family pension or appointment on compassionate grounds, is not sustainable in the eye of law on any of the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

The writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.