Sarun V.S vs Union Of India & Others

K. Haripal, Member J

The applicant is the son of one V.S.Sallappan, who was a Group-D daily wage employee under the 3rd respondent. Sallappan was regularised as Group-D employee in 2000 and died of a road traffic accident on 02.07.2014. According to the applicant, he had left behind his widow and two children, his untimely death has caused miseries and hardships to the family. Even though the mother of the applicant, the widow, is also a Group-D employee appointed in 2007 working in the same Naval organisation, she is drawing only a meager amount of about Rs.9,000/- per month, which is hardly sufficient to meet both ends. Thus the applicant moved the 3rd respondent seeking employment assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme. But by Annexure-A1 to A4 communications, without considering the material aspects and the parameters laid in Annexure-A10 scheme for compassionate appointment, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has moved this Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's request afresh for grant of appointment under compassionate grounds and to extend all consequential benefits.

According to the applicant, Annexure-A1 to A4 communications were made without application of proper mind. The necessity of granting assistance by way of compassionate employment is quite justified, but without considering the relevant aspects the application was dismissed only for the reason that his mother is employed. But the mother was getting only a meager amount. Her net income is considerably low, she has liabilities on account of loans taken by the father for the purpose of buying a small building. The annual income of the mother is only Rs.2,93,556/-. She has other liabilities but the application for compassionate appointment was rejected without application of mind, without adverting to the necessary aspects and genuineness of the claim of the applicant.

On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent filed reply statement denying the claim of the applicant. According to the 3rd respondent, all relevant aspects were considered; as both the parents of the applicant were employed, it cannot be stated that he was depending wholly on the father. It is true that at the time when the father had died in 2014, the mother was drawing only Rs.6,840/- as basic pay. At present, after the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission, her basic pay is Rs.26,400/- and now she is drawing an approximate monthly income of Rs.39,324/-. No such financial emergency was caused to the applicant and he does not deserve to be employed under the Dying in Harness Employment Scheme. According to the respondents, the matter was referred to the Ministry and to the Integrated Headquarters of the Navy, everything was considered at all levels and the application was dismissed for valid reasons and further consideration is not warranted.

I heard counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on Annexure-A1 to A10 documents in support of his claim for compassionate employment. According to him, the application moved by the applicant was rejected solely for the reason that his mother is employed. Referring to clause 6(a) of Annexure-A10, learned counsel pointed out that irrespective of the consideration that there is an earning member in the family, still the benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended to deserving candidates. According to him, here the unexpected demise of Mr.Sallappan had caused mental agony and financial drain to the family. He had availed a huge loan of Rs.12,00,000/-, which is outstanding to be repaid by the widow and children. If only the applicant, who is a Plus-Two qualified person is given appropriate appointment, the family will be able to tide over the difficulties. According to the learned counsel, the second son is doing his Post Graduation, the financial liabilities are huge and therefore, rejection of the application without considering the relevant aspects is illegal and liable to be undone by this Tribunal.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has opposed the application. According to him, the widow of the deceased, that is the mother of the applicant, is presently drawing nearly Rs.39,000/- a month. The applicant is only 26 years old and his prospects of getting a job from other avenues cannot be ruled out. Referring to the affidavit in Annexure-A6 he said that sufficient materials are not produced to say that so much liabilities are outstanding. According to him, even assuming that Sallappan had availed a loan, that was for buying a house, which is an asset to the family and therefore cannot be taken as a liability. Referring to the intention of granting such employment assistance, he said that the reason must be genuine. Here, the applicant cannot be said remaining in penury. The employment scheme is intended to give support to deserving candidates. There are other genuine claimants who are awaiting appointment and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. According to him, Annexure-A1 to A4 were passed after considering all the necessary materials. Learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in Arun Kumar v. Secretary to Government and Ors. in WP(MD) No.20973 of 2015 dated 19.06.2019.

The facts are not in dispute. Sallappan, father of the applicant, had died on 02.07.2014 while in service. He met with a road traffic accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained. Later, the applicant, who acquired Plus two qualification moved the 3rd respondent seeking employment assistance, which was rejected and aggrieved by the same, he has moved this Tribunal for issuing a direction as aforestated.

The noble object and intention of granting employment under the dying in harness scheme need not be overemphasized. The Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the object of the scheme on numerous occasions. It has been held in number of decisions that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis caused due to the death of the bread earner, who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood [Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.[(2007) SCC 193]. In the decision in NGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrabarthy [(2013) SCC 583] it has been held that every appointment in public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to Supreme Court, an exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family which has lost its bread earner. Mere death of a Government employee does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and if it is satisfied that, without providing employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job has to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Moreover, the Tribunal should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family distress; it is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

The case of the petitioner has to be considered in the above backdrop. Admittedly, the father of the applicant had died on 02.07.2014. Even though the applicant and his mother had moved the respondents seeking employment assistance, that was rejected by Annexure-A1 to A4 communications. The crux of the decision of the respondents is that the widow, the mother of the applicant, is employed having an annual income of Rs.2,93,556/-, and there are other deserving cases to be considered for employment assistance and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme.

Of course, there are numerous parameters, as inferable from Annexure-A10 guidelines to be followed by the employer while considering an application for employment assistance under the dying in harness scheme. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that Annexure-A1 to A4 communications were sent without considering all the aspects but merely on the ground that the mother of the applicant is an earning member. Of course, that alone is not sufficient to reject an application especially in the light of clause 6(a) of Annexure-A10 guidelines. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant strongly pressed for issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh. This prayer has been vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Even though the respondents were duty bound to consider all the relevant aspects including that of the employment of the widow, for that reason, I do not think, having regard to the entire circumstances, the matter needs be reopened and sent back to the respondents for a re-look. In my opinion, a decision can be taken at this stage itself taking into account the materials made available by the parties.

Now it is the common case that the widow of the deceased Smt. Devikala is also a permanent employee under the 3rd respondent. She is a Group-D employee. On the basis of the submissions of the applicant itself, she is drawing nearly Rs.9,000/- per month. As rightly stated by the learned Standing Counsel, that is the case of 2014 and from 2016 onwards, after the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, there must have been periodical enhancement in the salary of the widow. At present her salary is nearly Rs.39,000/-, which is not seriously disputed.

Secondly, basing on the affidavit in Annexure-A6, it was pointed out that Sallappan had left after making a liability of nearly Rs.12,00,000/- for the purchase of a place of abode for them. But there are reasons to doubt the veracity of the statement. From the version of the applicant itself, it is clear that there is no such liability of Rs.12,00,000/-, which was outstanding at the time of death of Sallappan. From Annexure-A8 it is clear that Smt.Devikala had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Cochin Naval Base Civilian Employees Co-Operative Society and the outstanding amount as on 23.10.2017 is Rs.1,10,000/-. Similarly, Annexure-A8 certificate issued from Vijaya Bank shows that Sallappan had availed a housing loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 10.04.2013 and the loan tenure is 15 years. All the same, the affidavit in Annexure-A6 indicates that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- apart from the loan availed from Vijaya Bank. But particulars are not available with regard to this sum of Rs.7,00,000/- reportedly availed from the Naval Base Credit Society as stated in the affidavit. Whatever it may be, as rightly pointed out, the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- availed from Vijaya Bank is for the purpose of purchasing a house, which is for acquisition of an asset and not a liability.

Again, Annexure-A7 proforma regarding the employment shows that on the death of Sallappan, the family was given amounts from the DCRG Rs.2,66,532/-, GPF balance of Rs.1,85,486/-, from the Life Insurance Policy an amount of Rs.38,000/-, and from the CGE Insurance Rs.33,845/-, leave encashment was to the extent of Rs.2,22,110/-; the total amount comes to Rs.7,45,973/-, which in fact is sufficient to redeem the loan availed from the bank.

Both the parents of the applicant were earning members. Therefore, the sudden demise of the father, even though must have caused agony and irreparable loss to the family, that has not caused any financial stalemate in the family of the applicant. But in my assessment, having regard to the fact that the mother is earning, that she has a family pension of Rs.5,365/- at the time of death of Sallappan, which must have been enhanced after the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission and having regard to the benefits accrued on the demise of the father, it does not seem that the death had caused any financial emergency in the family. As rightly pointed out, such a scheme should be given only to those who are really deserving, who are in a straitened position. It does not seem that the applicant falls within the category of such a financial constraints and therefore, I do not find valid reasons to say that Annexure-A1 to A4 have to be remitted to the respondents for a re-look.

In the result, the application is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs.

Dated 20th September, 2022