Saurav Kumar vs Union of India

Partha Sarthy, J

Heard Mr. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( IOCL in short).

The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for quashing the letter dated 1.3.2018 of the General Manager, HR, IOCL addressed to the mother of the petitioner communicating the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father who was working in the Maintenance Department in the Barauni Refinery of the IOCL having died in harness on 1.2.2017, the mother of the petitioner filed an application on 17.4.2017 (Annexure-R/2) giving the name of both her sons as dependents and requesting that Sanjeev Kumar Singh, her elder son be appointed on compassionate ground.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a letter dated 15.5.2017 was written by the IOCL to the petitioner s mother stating therein that under the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (SABF Scheme), Sanjeev Kumar Singh not being a dependent of his father and not being eligible for employment, her application was being returned in original with a request to her to nominate her son or daughter who is eligible for employment. The said nomination was to be made within six months of the death of the employee i.e. by 31.7.2017.

It is further contended that from letter dated 24.7.2017 of the IOCL, it would transpire that the application for nominating Sanjeev Kumar Singh was not considered by the IOCL and the final rejection with respect to the said application came to be communicated only by letter/order dated 1.3.2018 (Annexure-8).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if Sanjeev Kumar Singh was not a dependent, his application could not have been considered by the IOCL and it was the IOCL who was responsible for the delay resulting in the petitioner not being able to file an application for his appointment on compassionate ground within the prescribed period of six months. As such, it is submitted that the order impugned be set aside and if for any reason Sanjeev Kumar Singh is not considered dependent of the deceased employee i.e. his father, the petitioner be permitted to file an application and the respondent IOCL be directed to consider the same and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

The application is opposed by Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel appearing for the IOCL. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner having been informed about the SABF Scheme, she filed an application on 15.4.2017 requesting for appointment of her elder son on compassionate ground. Subsequently it transpires that Sanjeev Kumar Singh could not be appointed as he was not a dependent and was not eligible under the scheme for the reason of being married. There was discrepancy in his date of birth as mentioned in the birth certificate and that mentioned in the matriculation certificate. Further Clause IV of IOM no.1 of 2017 describes that option once exercised in respect of a child, thereafter no change shall be permitted in favour of another child.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the father of the petitioner having died in harness on 1.2.2017, the mother of the petitioner filed an application for employment of the dependent son namely Sanjeev Kumar Singh, a copy of the application having been brought on record as Annexure-R/2.

It further transpires that the application for compassionate appointment of Sanjeev Kumar Singh came to be rejected on the ground of his being married, and consequently being debarred under employment option R3 of the SABF Scheme.

Further in the office memo dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure-R/7) issued by the IOCL on the subject of children dependency criteria under the employment option (R-3) of Rehabilitation Scheme, it clearly provides that the child has to be of the unmarried status at the time of death of the employee as well as at the time of submission of the application for employment. So far as Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the elder brother of the petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that he was already married and also has a child and thus he does not come within the definition of a dependent.

Clause VI of the SABF Scheme further provides that option once exercised shall be final and no change thereafter shall be permissible. On perusal of the application form filed by the mother of the petitioner (Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit), it transpires that the mother of the petitioner had clearly requested for employment of her elder son Sanjeev Kumar Singh who was not found to be qualified on the ground of being married.

So far as the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that even by letter dated 15.5.2017 written by the IOCL to the mother of the petitioner, while returning the application requesting for appointment of Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the IOCL had requested the petitioner s mother to nominate her son or daughter who is eligible for employment by 31.7.2017, it may only be observed that the provisions of the SABF Scheme being categorical that option once exercised shall be final and no change thereafter shall be permissible, a letter of an officer/employee of the IOCL would not change the position.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the Court finds no error in the decision of the respondent IOCL in rejecting the application filed by the elder brother of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. The Court finds no merit in the instant application.

The application is dismissed.