Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
CM No. 10444/2006 (delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appeal is taken on record.
The application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
LPA No. 1713/2006
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking an order that she should be given a compassionate appointment by the respondents. The aforesaid prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge as against which the present appeal is filed.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the records. In order to appreciate the contentions made, background facts are required to be narrated at this stage.
3. The husband of the appellant was working as Deputy Sports Manager with the respondent No. 2 in its Bongaigaon Refinery Office at Bongaigaon, Assam. On 8th January, 2002, the husband of the appellant met with an accident on the 31-C National Highway, at an intersection. As a result of the aforesaid accident, husband of the appellant died leaving behind the widow, the appellant and two minor children. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 2 on 29th July, 2002. The said request was considered by the respondent and by letter dated 7th October, 2002, the respondent rejected the request for compassionate appointment stating as follows:
we refer to your letter dated 29.07.2002 on the above subject. We have perused the details stated in your above referred letter. On examination of the details of the case available in company records, the accident of late J.P. Jugran can not be treated as a work related accident death case. As such, in accordance with the policy of the company it is not possible to consider your request for employment on compassionate grounds, which was also informed vide our letter of even number dated 11.06.2002.
You would kindly appreciate that with a view to mitigate hardship of the family members of a deceased employee, the company has adopted certain schemes for providing financial assistance in addition to statutory benefits. As already informed, the total amount which you have received/ would receive under various schemes, works out to about Rs. 34 laksh approx. This amount is in addition to the monthly pension and the compensation which you would receive under the Motor Vehicle Act. With these financial assistance, which is substantial, you can very well tide over the sudden financial crisis. You would also appreciate that the basic object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not provide employment.
We sincerely share your grief; however, keeping in view the object of providing employment on compassionate ground and the provisions of the BRPL Employees Rehabilitation Scheme, we are not in a position to provide you any employment in the company.
4. The aforesaid letter of rejection of the request for compassionate appointment was challenged in the writ petition.
5. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a scheme which is framed by the respondents for rehabilitation of the family of the employee dying or suffering permanent total disablement while in service. The aforesaid scheme is extensively extracted in the impugned judgment and order. However, for convenience sake, we desire to extract the relevant portions thereof, to which our attention was drawn by the counsel for the parties.
2.0 The Scheme is intended to rehabilitate dependent family members of an employee who dies or suffers permanent total disablement rendering the employee unfit for employment while in service of BRPL. For this purpose the family will include wife and dependent children (in case of male child up to 21 years and for female child up to marriage).
4.3 The rehabilitation grant will not be admissible where compassionate employment is provided to the wife of the deceased employee (in case of work accident related death case) or when spouse is already employed in BRPL. The scheme is also not applicable in case of unmarried employee.
6. There will be no scope for considering compassionate employment except in cases of work related accident death cases, where the Company will consider providing compassionate employment to wives of deceased employee.
6. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted before us that the husband of the appellant died in course of his employment and, thereforee, it was a case of work related accident death case. Accordingly to him, consequently Clause 2.0 of the aforesaid scheme is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted before us that since the death of the husband of the appellant was work related, thereforee, the respondent should have considered for providing compassionate appointment to the wife of the deceased employee, namely, the appellant herein. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Anr. v. Nanak Chand and Anr. reported in : (2005)ILLJ240SC . He submitted that since there is a guideline available with the respondent for giving compassionate appointment to the appellant, thereforee, the observations made in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi reported in : AIR1996SC2445 are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. We also heard the learned Counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the appellant suffered the accident during the lunch hour when he had gone to take his lunch and not in the manner as sought to be submitted by the appellant. The respondent further stated before us that the scheme framed by the respondent envisages appointment on compassionate grounds, but the same cannot be sought for in the present case as he did not die due to work related reason. It was also submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as another source of recruitment but should be treated as an exception to the general rule of making appointment through the usual procedure. It was also submitted that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 34 lacs from the respondent and also compensation of an amount of Rs. 3 lacs under the Motor Vehicles Act and that besides, she would also be entitled to Rs. 4300/- per month as pension amounts and that consequently it cannot be said that she is in the penury condition. It was contended that the very object of giving a compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis, which is not the case here.
8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the records, which prove and establish that the total amount, which was received by the appellant herein was an amount of Rs. 37 lacs being Rs 3 lacs compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the balance Rs. 34 lacs towards statutory and terminal benefits and additional benefits under the policy of rehabilitation package. Clause 4.3 which is extracted above specifically provides that the rehabilitation grant given to the appellant would not be admissible where compassionate employment is provided to the wife of the deceased employee. As per the provisions of BRPL Employees Rehabilitation Scheme and other benefits which the appellant would be receiving from the respondent are as follows:
a] Monthly pension of Rs. 1188/- approx per month under BRPL Employees Benevolent Fund Scheme, from Post Office.
b] Rs. 750/- approx per month under BRPL Employees Rehabilitation Scheme from LIC, Guwahati.
c] Monthly pension [widow and children pension] of Rs. 2625/- approx. under Pension Scheme from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
In addition to above, she will receive the following benefits from the Company.
1. Group Terms Insurance - Rs. 62,000.002. Group Saving Linked Insurance - Rs. 2,80,000.00 [approx]3. Group Personal Accident Benefit - Rs. 20,98,000.00 [approx]4. Benevolent Fund (balance amount)- Rs. 32,000.00 [approx]5. Gratuity - Rs. 3,35,964.006. Provident Fund - Rs. 4,66,000.00 [approx]7. Terminal Benefit - Rs. 1,43,700.00 [approx]Total - Rs. 34,17,664.00 [approx]
9. It is also stated by the respondent that she received traveling allowance for herself and dependent children and also transportation charges for carrying her personal effects and also 'settling allowance' of Rs. 26,398/- approximately.
10. Considering the quantum of amount received by her on the death of her husband and the amount that she would be receiving as pension, it cannot be said that the appellant is in financial crisis. At any rate she cannot be said to be in a penury condition.
11. The issue of appointment being made on compassionate ground has been subject matter of various cases which are decided by this Court and also by the Supreme Court. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment nor can it be claimed as a matter of right. Courts and Tribunals while deciding cases of compassionate appointment should not confer any benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration, as such claims cannot be strictly upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. In this connection we may refer to an earlier decision rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 4733-34/004 : Smt. Savitri Devi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 5th October, 2005 in which it was stated that claim for appointment on compassionate ground whenever made should be reasonable and justified on the basis of sudden economic crisis occurring in a family, whose bread earner has died in harness and that such request for appointment on compassionate ground has to be strictly in accordance with the Schemes/Rules and regulations framed for that purpose. In coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this Court considered various decisions of the Supreme Court including Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja reported in : (2004)IIILLJ536SC and General Manager (D&P;B) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwari and Anr. reported in : (2004)IIILLJ1136SC . Supreme Court has also held that the retiral benefits which are received by the family on death of the deceased could also be considered by the Courts, while considering as to whether or not the person deserves to be granted appointment on compassionate ground. We reiterate the same position.
13. Having considered the submissions made before us and having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that no relief as sought for by the appellant could be granted. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.