Smt. Kuntala Mohanta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

R.K. Patra, Acting C.J.

1. Is a married daughter entitled to compassionate appointment following the death of her father The petitioner's such claim having been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in its order dated 16.2.1998, she has filed this writ application challenging its validity.

2. Petitioner's father Dambarudhar Mohanta while working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in Radhijkadeipur Branch Post Office expired on 30.10.1995 leaving behind his widow Sumitraand two children including the petitioner as daughter. After the demise of Dambarudhar Mohanta, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar requested his widow-Sumitra to submit application in the prescribed form for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. In response to the said request, the petitioner submitted the application with required documents. The matter was considered in the Circle Relaxation Committee meeting which was held on 3.7.1996 in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar. The said committee found that the petitioner being a married daughter of the deceased employee cannot be treated to be his family member. Accordingly, the committee did not recommend her for appointment on compassionate ground. This was informed to her in Chief Post Master General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar's Memo No. RE/17.1/92 dated. 9.7.1996. After the said decision, steps were taken to fill up the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Redhikadeipur. The Junior Employment Exchange Officer, Champua sent a list of six candidates. These persons were asked to submit applications and documents and after verification, Mitrabhanu Giri(opp. party No. 5) was selected and appointed on 25.4.1997 as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Radhikadeipur. The petitioner, in the back-ground stated above, filed O.A.No. 309 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which after hearing dismissed the case by its order dated 16.2.1998 at Annexure-3.

3. So far as compassionate appointment under the Government of India is concerned, two Office Memoranda have been brought to our notice. They are; (1) Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 14014/6-86 -Estt. (D) dated 30.6.1987 and (2) Office Memorandum No. 14014/20/90 Estt. (D) of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 9.12.1993. The first Office Memorandum dated 30.6.1987 at Annexure-4 contains instructions indicating the principles to be followed in making compassionate appointment of sons/daughters/ near relatives of deceased Government servants. Paragraph No. 1 of Annexure- 4 contains three clauses, out of which we are not concerned with Clauses (b) and (c) as they deal with the case of retirement of a Government servant on medical grounds and death of a Government servant during the period in extension of service. Clause (a) states that the instruction would be applicable to a son or daughter or near relatives of a Government servant who dies in harness including death by suicide, leaving his family in immediate need of assistance when there is no other earning member in the family.

The second Office Memorandum dated 9.12.1993 at Annexure-5 has been issued by way of clarification in which it has been stated that from the date of its issue, no near relative of the deceased Government servant will be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and it is only a widow or a son or daughter or adopted son or adopted daughter of the deceased Government servant who can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. On close reading of both the Memoranda, it appears that the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground is not available to a married daughter of the deceased Government employee. In the face of the aforesaid instructions, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner being a married daughter of the deceased is not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment relied upon the following cases. Let us examine if any of them is of any assistance to him.

The first case is that of Savita Samvedi (Ms.) v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 380. In that case, question arose as to whether the married daughter who was a railway employee was entitled to regularisation of the railway quarter allotted to his father who was a railway employee after his r-etirement. After considering the relevant Railway Board Circular dated 11.8.1992, Supreme Court held that the married daughter is entitled to regularisation of the quarter with affect from the date of retirement of his father. The aforesaid Railway Board Circular provided that the married daughter of a retiring official can be allotted railway accommodation on out-of-turn basis in case he (retiring official) does not have any son or in case where the married daughter is the only person who is prepared to maintain the parent and the sons not in a position to do so (e.g. minor sons). The aforesaid being factual position, the ratio of that case is of no assistance to the petitioner.

The second case is a decision of this Court in Chakradhar Das v. Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited, 1996 LAB l.C. 1621. In that case, this Court held that the son-in-law, though he does not come within the term 'family member' can be considered by relaxing the Rule 16(1) of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as a deserving case. This Court accordingly directed the concerned department to consider if on the facts and circumstances of that case relaxation as provided under Rule 16(1) could be done.

That direction was obviously, made in view of the specific provision empowering the concerned authority to relax the rules in deserving eases. The present is not a case of that type.

The third case is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 LAB l.C. 1375. In that case by the time applicant applied for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, he was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, but the application was kept pending without any decision being taken and when the scheme was amended depriving a married son for such appointment, his application was rejected. In the circumstances, the Court held that subsequent change in the policy cannot deprive the applicant retrospectively so as to prejudicially affect his right for appointment on compassionate ground. This case is also of no assistance to the petitioner as the fact situation is quite different.

The fourth case relied by Shri Mohapatra is that of a decision of Patna High Court in Sumitra Devi v. State of Bihar, 1997 LAB LC. 1974. In that case, the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the applicants were the citizens of Nepal and not the citizens of India. Learned Single Judge held that the dependants of the Government servant dying in harness would be persons similarly situated irrespective of their citizenship. The ratio of that case has also no application to the case at hand.

The fifth case is a decision of this Court in Smt. Ketaki Manjari Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1998 (11) OLR 452. In that case, this Court directed the State Government to consider if on the ground of hardship, prayer of a married daughter can be considered in view of Rule 16 of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, which provides that the State Government may consider the applicability of the Rule considering the undue hardship suffered by the applicant. The ratio of that case, therefore, cannot be extended to the present case.

The sixth case is that of Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 1999 Lab LC. 3577. In that case the question arose whether a grandson of a Government servant who died in harness can claim for appointment on compassionate ground. That was a case in which under the relevant rules a grandson does not come within the meaning of 'family.' A learned Single Judge, however, held that as the definition is inclusive one, the grandson is to be treated as a member of the 'family.' With great respect we are not inclined to accept such a wide interpretation made by him.

The last one is that of a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. The Idea of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathswami Thirukeli, AIR 1996 SC 1697. In that case question was with regard to conferment of property on wife under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Its ratio has absolutely no application to the present case.

5. We may now proceed to consider the decisions referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the union of India.

The first case is Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswar Rao, AIR 1994 SC 1521. In that case, following the death of his father in harness, the son applied for compassionate appointment. On consideration of the relevant Office Memorandum governing the filed, the Supreme Court held that appointments on compassionate ground are confined to the son/daughter or widow of the deceased Government employee who needs immediate appointment to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family in absence of any earning member to supplement the loss of income from the bread earner who died in harness.

The second case cited by Shri Das is that of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar, AIR 1994 SC 2148. It was been ruled by the Supreme Court that the Court cannot direct appointment to be made contrary to the statutory instances.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.

M. Papanna, J.

7. I agree.