AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J
1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2) In this Special Appeal, the petitioners / appellants, being the widow and son, of late Shiv Dass Shukla, an employee of the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation, who died in harness on 10.02.2011, have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.12.2021, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1185 of 2020, dismissing the prayer of the petitioners to enhance the lump sum payment as per the existing policy of 1st June 2007.
3) The facts of the case are not in dispute in this case. On 10.02.2001, the employee, Shiv Dass Shukla, died in harness due to cardiac arrest while on duty. He was survived by his wife, the petitioner No. 1, and three children. On 02.03.2001, petitioner No. 1 received a letter of the same date from the Personnel Officer, Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, directing her to appear before him with duly filled form for appointment on compassionate ground along with requisite documents. Such application was forwarded to the Manager (Personnel) on 11.05.2001. In March 2003, the petitioner No. 1, prayed the respondent to grant an appointment to her elder son (petitioner No. 2), who has become major in the meantime. As two years elapsed, petitioner No. 1 approached the higher authorities at various levels for granting appointment on compassionate ground, but did not achieve anything. The petitioner No. 1, on 30.08.2005, received a communication from the Manager (Personnel), NHPC Office Complex, Sector -33, Faridabad (Haryana), informing that discussion for an alternative cash lump sum payment scheme in lieu of compassionate scheme is at an advanced stage, and her case shall be settled along with other cases accordingly. The petitioner No. 1 further received a letter dated 03.01.2007 from the Officer (HR) informing that her request was considered by the committee constituted for examination of lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, and she was not found eligible for the lump sum payment under the aforesaid scheme as her annual income was more than one lakh rupees. She was further advised to contact the HR department of Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project for more details. According to petitioner No. 1, she personally contacted the authorities as advised, but no details were provided to her. From November 2007 to 2016, the petitioner No. 1 was undergoing intense mental agony, and was diagnosed with a tumor in her right breast. Finding no other way, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1989 of 2016 before this Court, which was disposed of on 23.04.2019.
4) We find it appropriate to take note of the exact order passed by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid Writ Petition. The same reads as under:
“Husband of petitioner no.1, namely, Mr. Shiv Dass Shukla was serving as Senior Foreman in Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project of National Hydro Power Corporation, who died on 10.02.2001 leaving behind his wife and three children, out of which, two were minor. In view of precarious financial condition of the family, petitioner no. 1 applied for compassionate appointment in the month of May, 2001 which was, ultimately, rejected on 03.01.2007 by relying upon para 2.5 (v) of the Lump-Sum Payment Scheme in Lieu of the Earlier Scheme of Compassionate Appointment introduced in the year 2005. Para 2.5 (v) of the said scheme is extracted below:
“2.5 (v) If the family is having other source of income including rent or interest on deposits etc. for more than Rs. 1 Lakh (one lakh) per annum, such cases will not be considered. The amount being given by NHPC by way of terminal benefits etc. will also be taken into account. ‘Family’ for this purpose shall mean Spouse and dependant children of deceased employee.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners do not have any immovable property, therefore, the respondents erred in assessing the income of the petitioners from house and land as ₹ 47,112/-Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a certificate issued by Tehsildar, Raebareli, which indicates that the total income of petitioner no. 1 from all sources is ₹ 1300/- month (₹ 15,600/- per annum). He further submits that whatever little amount was released as terminal benefits to the family has been spent in educating and bringing up the children and the petitioners are now left without any source of income. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 (widow of late Shiv Dass Shukla) is suffering from Cancer and the petitioners do not have any money to get the treatment.
This Court finds some substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioners. In the absence of any income from property to the petitioners, the respondents erred in assessing the income from rent to the petitioners as ₹ 47,112/-.
In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order dated 03.01.2007 is set aside. Petitioners shall be at liberty to make appropriate representation within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, General Manager/Officer-in-charge, Dhauli Ganga Hydro Electric Project, District Pithoragarh shall examine petitioners claim independently without being influenced by the earlier rejection order/any observation made by this Court and take appropriate decision and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order.
All pending applications stand disposed of.”
5) In pursuance to such order, representation was made by the petitioner No. 1 on 06.05.2019 to the General Manager, Dhauliganga, Hydro Electric Project, Tapovan, Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. The petitioner No. 1 received a letter dated 20.06.2019 from the respondent No. 3 that the record related to the petitioner was not traceable. Any way, finally, an order was passed on 23.12.2019 stating therein that an amount of Rs.4,83,026/- has been credited to the account of petitioner No. 1 on 16.12.2019. On 26.02.2020, the petitioner No. 1 made a protest against the aforesaid payment of Rs.4,83,026/-, as it was against the soul and spirit of the new scheme for payment of lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment introduced by the Corporation in August 2006. The petitioner No. 1 received a communication dated 21.03.2020 that the lump sum amount has been calculated on the basis of provisions under the scheme of lump sum payment in lieu of earlier scheme of compassionate appointment introduced by the Corporation on 31.08.2006. In other words, the petitioner No. 1 was denied the benefit of Circular no. 20/2006, which came into force on 01.06.2007.
6) Since the husband of petitioner No. 1 expired on 10.02.2001, such order was assailed by the present petitioners (appellants herein) before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to any benefit under the new scheme. The learned Single Judge held that looking to the factual backdrop, the petitioner’s claim for being considered for the grant of service benefits, as a consequence of death of her husband on 10.02.2001, would fall within the domain of then existing Policy, i.e., prior to the Policy of 1st June, 2007, based on which, the decision was taken by the respondent No. 3 on 03.01.2007.
7) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous on the face of record. In view of the fact that on the date of death of the employee in harness, no lump sum policy was in force. In fact, the dying-in-harness policy was in force. So in all probability, the petitioner’s case for rehabilitation, assistance and employment should have been considered. However, in the meantime, more than 20 years have elapsed, and the policy has been revised twice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent No. 3 took a decision in the year 2007, and therefore, the policy which was promulgated in the year 2006 was to be upgraded from the year 2007, and should have been invoked in this case, as a special case, where the petitioner’s claim of employment on rehabilitation and assistance has been denied.
8) In that view of the matter, the Special Appeal is allowed. The order dated 01.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1185 of 2020, is hereby set aside. Instead, it is directed that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- as per the new scheme, out of which they have already paid Rs.4,83,026/-. The balance sum should be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner No. 1 is also entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the remaining amount from 16.12.2019. The respondents shall comply this order within three months, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest from the aforesaid date on the differential amount at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.
9) Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules, during the course of the day.