Anita Vyas Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) rajasthan recruitment of dependants of government servants dying while in service rules, 1975 - section 2(f)--family--definition of--question 'whether the married daughter of the deceased could be included in the definition of family for the purpose of seeking appointment on compassionate ground?'--held, no--after marriage, daughter becomes a member of her husband's family.;(b) rajasthan recruitment of dependents of government servants dying while in service rules, 1975 - rule 5--compassionate appointment--one can never claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right.;writ petition dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - he submitted that under the act, the tribunal was required to record finding on each and every point but the same has not been done in this matter, therefore, the impugned order is bad. r/2 clearly provides that on the sudden death of the government servant, those family members leaving with the deceased who are in immediate need of assistance would only be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.ordershethna, j. 1. short question arising in this petition is as to 'whether the married daughter of the deceased could be included in the definition of family for the purposes of seeking appointment on compassionate ground?'(2). avinash chandra was serving in telecommunication department as supervisor. he died on 27.2.94 while in service leaving behind his widow smt. maggi devi and his married daughter smt. anita vyas. except anita, he has no other issue. on the death of her father. smt. anita applied for appointment on compassionate ground but she was denied appointment on various grounds, therefore, she had filed original application no. 228/96 before the central administrative tribunal, jodhpur bench, jodhpur (for short 'the tribunal'). the learned tribunal by its order dated 5.10.2000 dismissed that application, therefore, she has filed this petition under art. 227 of the constitution.(3). learned counsel mr. singhvi for the petitioner raised a technical contention regarding giving findings on each point by the tribunal. he submitted that under the act, the tribunal was required to record finding on each and every point but the same has not been done in this matter, therefore, the impugned order is bad. he also submitted that the tribunal committed grave error in not allowing her application on the ground that the widow of the deceased was getting pension. he also submitted that the husband of anita vyas was jobless, therefore, her mother had to maintain not only herself but her husband also. he submitted that in absence of any other issue in the family of her father, the respondents should have given her appointment on the compassionate ground.(4). from the order at annex. 1, it appears that she was denied appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that the widow of deceased was getting monthly family pension of rs. 1670/- p.m. and they had three houses for the purpose of their occupation and rent purposes. it is further clear that the applicant got married to om prakash vyas residing in a different state of karnataka. at the time of death of avinash, only his widow smt. maggi devi was staying with him. on the death of her husband, she got a total amount of rs. 2,02,216/- and family pension at the rate of rs. 1670/-p.m. above that, she had three houses, out of which in one house, she was living and two other houses were let out. therefore, the tribunal came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the family of the deceased was living in harness on the death of avinash. the object of the scheme is to give relief to the family members from economic distress due to sudden demise in harness. keeping in mind all the relevant facts of the case, the tribunal rejected the original application.(5). learned counsel mr. singhvi, relying upon the office memorandum dated 30.6.87 (annex. r/2), submitted that the petitioner being the married daughter was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father. hesubmitted that the son or daughter or near relative 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, would be entitle to gel appointment on compassionate ground.(6). in our considered opinion, the family would not include the married daughter for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father. once she has got married, she would become a member of her husband's family till her husband is alive. her husband is jobless or not maintaining her for any reason, then she will have to claim maintenance from her husband and not from her father even after her divorce.(7). from the facts of the instant case, it is clear that she was living with her husband after her marriage in other stale of karnataka. at the time of death of her father, only her mother maggi devi, widow of deceased, was staying. annex. r/2 clearly provides that on the sudden death of the government servant, those family members leaving with the deceased who are in immediate need of assistance would only be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. that includes son or daughter or near relative of a government servant.(8). it is clear that the applicant was not living with her father at the time of his death. from the record of the case, it is also clear that when avinash dies, he had left three houses-one for residential purposes and two were let out. on his death, his widow got more than rs. 2 laksh and she was gelling family pension of rs. 1670/-p.m. for a single person, it cannot be said that on the death of her husband, she was living in harness.(9). under the circumstances, we are not inclined to attach any importance to a technical submission raised by learned counsel mr. singhvi about finding to be recorded on each and every point. when substantial justice is done, then this court will not interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution.(10). before parting we must make it very clear that the married daughter who was not staying with the deceased government servant at the lime of his death, whose family is not in harness on his death, would not be entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground.(11). one can never claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter ofright. only thing is that the authority is required to consider the case in accordancewith the rules and if the authority has come to the conclusion that he or she will notbe entitled, then this court ordinarily will not sit in appeal over such decision in its writjurisdiction.(12). in view of the above discussion, there is no substance or merits in this petition. accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Shethna, J.

1. Short question arising in this petition is as to 'whether the married daughter of the deceased could be included in the definition of Family for the purposes of seeking appointment on compassionate ground?'

(2). Avinash Chandra was serving in Telecommunication department as Supervisor. He died on 27.2.94 while in service leaving behind his widow Smt. Maggi Devi and his married daughter Smt. Anita Vyas. Except Anita, he has no other issue. On the death of her father. Smt. Anita applied for appointment on compassionate ground but she was denied appointment on various grounds, therefore, she had filed original application no. 228/96 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal by its order dated 5.10.2000 dismissed that application, therefore, she has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3). Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi for the petitioner raised a technical contention regarding giving findings on each point by the Tribunal. He submitted that under the Act, the Tribunal was required to record finding on each and every point but the same has not been done in this matter, therefore, the impugned order is bad. He also submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in not allowing her application on the ground that the widow of the deceased was getting pension. He also submitted that the husband of Anita Vyas was jobless, therefore, her mother had to maintain not only herself but her husband also. He submitted that in absence of any other issue in the family of her father, the respondents should have given her appointment on the compassionate ground.

(4). From the order at Annex. 1, it appears that she was denied appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that the widow of deceased was getting monthly family pension of Rs. 1670/- p.m. and they had three houses for the purpose of their occupation and rent purposes. It is further clear that the applicant got married to Om Prakash Vyas residing in a different State of Karnataka. At the time of death of Avinash, only his widow Smt. Maggi Devi was staying with him. On the death of her husband, she got a total amount of Rs. 2,02,216/- and family pension at the rate of Rs. 1670/-p.m. Above that, she had three houses, out of which in one house, she was living and two other houses were let out. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the family of the deceased was living in harness on the death of Avinash. The object of the scheme is to give relief to the family members from economic distress due to sudden demise in harness. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts of the case, the Tribunal rejected the original application.

(5). Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi, relying upon the office memorandum dated 30.6.87 (Annex. R/2), submitted that the petitioner being the married daughter was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father. Hesubmitted that the son or daughter or near relative 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, would be entitle to gel appointment on compassionate ground.

(6). In our considered opinion, the family would not include the married daughter for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father. Once she has got married, she would become a member of her husband's family till her husband is alive. Her husband is jobless or not maintaining her for any reason, then she will have to claim maintenance from her husband and not from her father even after her divorce.

(7). From the facts of the instant case, it is clear that she was living with her husband after her marriage in other Stale of Karnataka. At the time of death of her father, only her mother Maggi Devi, widow of deceased, was staying. Annex. R/2 clearly provides that on the sudden death of the government servant, those family members leaving with the deceased who are in immediate need of assistance would only be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. That includes son or daughter or near relative of a government servant.

(8). It is clear that the applicant was not living with her father at the time of his death. From the record of the case, it is also clear that when Avinash dies, he had left three houses-one for residential purposes and two were let out. On his death, his widow got more than Rs. 2 laksh and she was gelling family pension of Rs. 1670/-p.m. For a single person, it cannot be said that on the death of her husband, she was living in harness.

(9). Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to attach any importance to a technical submission raised by learned counsel Mr. Singhvi about finding to be recorded on each and every point. When substantial justice is done, then this Court will not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(10). Before parting we must make it very clear that the married daughter who was not staying with the deceased government servant at the lime of his death, whose family is not in harness on his death, would not be entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground.

(11). One can never claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter ofright. Only thing is that the authority is required to consider the case in accordancewith the Rules and if the authority has come to the conclusion that he or she will notbe entitled, then this Court ordinarily will not sit in appeal over such decision in its writjurisdiction.

(12). In view of the above discussion, there is no substance or merits in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.