Sofina M. and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. the first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the son of late anthony. he had initially served the armed forces, and thereafter, was employed as armed guard, in the state bank of india. he died on 24.1.2002, while in service. the first petitioner made an application to the respondents on 30.7.2002, with a request to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds. the respondents addressed a letter, dated 21.8.2004, stating that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in penurious condition, and in view of the judgment of the supreme court on the subject, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. the letter dated 21.8.2004 is challenged in this writ petition.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. the scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of an employee, who died while in service, was framed and implemented in government and semi-government organisations. the object of the scheme was to ensure that the sudden death of an employee does not leave his family in distress, and it is rescued from penury. over the years, the scheme has assumed such a proportion that the death of every employee while in service has resulted in submission of claim for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the condition of the family. instances are not lacking, when the employees while in service have retired on medical grounds, with the sole object of paving the way for compassionate appointment of their dependants. if at all any thing, these developments indicate the sense of social insecurity, particularly in the light of unemployment of a very high magnitude.4. whatever be the justification for such claims, the appointment on compassionate grounds remained the only source of recruitment in the various organisations, in the context of rationalization and reduction of man power. slowly, a semblance of succession of offices, has stepped in.5. a phenomenon, which used to be viewed with utmost sympathy, naturally called for a practical approach. with the dawning and increase of frustration in the unemployed, a closer scrutiny of cases for appointment on compassionate grounds became imperative. it is in this context that the supreme court in its decision in shri umesh kumar nagpal v. state of haryana : [1994]3scr893 , took the view that such appointments cannot be claimed or made, as a matter of course, and that it is only in case where the family is found to be in penury, without any other income, that the benefit under the scheme can be extended. in the recent past, the supreme court held that the amount of pension and other benefits received by the family, is a factor to be taken into account. this court followed the same in number of cases, and upheld the stand taken by the employers in rejecting the claims for compassionate appointment, where the families were found not to be in penurious condition.6. in the instant case, even according to the petitioners, they are receiving family pension, and that the other amounts, which became payable on the death of late anthony, were kept in a deposit, with the object of paying the instalments from out of the accrued interest. this court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.7. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the son of late Anthony. He had initially served the Armed Forces, and thereafter, was employed as Armed Guard, in the State Bank of India. He died on 24.1.2002, while in service. The first petitioner made an application to the respondents on 30.7.2002, with a request to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents addressed a letter, dated 21.8.2004, stating that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in penurious condition, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. The letter dated 21.8.2004 is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of an employee, who died while in service, was framed and implemented in Government and Semi-Government Organisations. The object of the scheme was to ensure that the sudden death of an employee does not leave his family in distress, and it is rescued from penury. Over the years, the scheme has assumed such a proportion that the death of every employee while in service has resulted in submission of claim for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the condition of the family. Instances are not lacking, when the employees while in service have retired on medical grounds, with the sole object of paving the way for compassionate appointment of their dependants. If at all any thing, these developments indicate the sense of social insecurity, particularly in the light of unemployment of a very high magnitude.

4. Whatever be the justification for such claims, the appointment on compassionate grounds remained the only source of recruitment in the various Organisations, in the context of rationalization and reduction of man power. Slowly, a semblance of succession of offices, has stepped in.

5. A phenomenon, which used to be viewed with utmost sympathy, naturally called for a practical approach. With the dawning and increase of frustration in the unemployed, a closer scrutiny of cases for appointment on compassionate grounds became imperative. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in its decision in Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : [1994]3SCR893 , took the view that such appointments cannot be claimed or made, as a matter of course, and that it is only in case where the family is found to be in penury, without any other income, that the benefit under the scheme can be extended. In the recent past, the Supreme Court held that the amount of pension and other benefits received by the family, is a factor to be taken into account. This Court followed the same in number of cases, and upheld the stand taken by the employers in rejecting the claims for compassionate appointment, where the families were found not to be in penurious condition.

6. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, they are receiving family pension, and that the other amounts, which became payable on the death of late Anthony, were kept in a deposit, with the object of paying the instalments from out of the accrued interest. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.