CHHABI SOOD v. THE CHAIRMAN, HIMACHAL GRAMIN BANK — 1993 DIGILAW 178 (HP)

JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J —By this writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution, petitioner Miss Chhabi Sood has sought the following relief: "To quash by the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be, the order dated 1st July, 1992, passed by the General Manager, Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi, (hereinafter referred to ‘the Gramin Bank), (Annexure P-3), rejecting the petitioners request for employment as Clerk on compassionate grounds in place of her brother Rajesh Kumar, who died in harness, with a further direction, directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner." 2. The facts of the case, in brief are stated as under i The petitioner claims to have passed 10 + 2 examination. Her brother Rajesh Kumar was employed as a Cleric in the Gramin Bank on 2nd May 1983 and worked as such till 5tb June, 1991, when he died in harness, leaving behind his old parents, one elder brother and one unmarried sister viz. the petitioner. The elder brother is employed as a Clerk in U. Co. Bank and he is living separately alongwith his wife from his parents and be is not supporting them. The petitioner and her old parents are living jointly The parents of the petitioner made two applications dated 27th June, 1991 and 6th August, 1991 (Annexures P-l and P-?t respectively) to respondent No. 2 for providing employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is stated by the petitioner that minimum educational qualification for the post of Clerk in the Gram in Bank is Matriculate and she is eligible to be appointed as such. The petitioner has alleged that her father is a retired person from the Postal and Telegraphs Department and is getting very meagre pension. According to the petitioner, there is do other source of income and she is un-married and is looking after her parents. The petitioners brother late Rajesh Kumar was stated to be un-married. He was only member supporting the petitioner as well as his parents. According to the Scheme of the Gramin Bank the petitioner is an eligible dependent of her deceased brother and is entitled for appointment as Clerk, it is alleged that order dated 1st July, 1992 (Annexure P-3) passed by tbe General Manager rejecting her claim is arbitrary and without assigning reasons. 3. The respondents have refuted and contested the claim of the petitioner. 3. The respondents have refuted and contested the claim of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, filed by Shri R. C Sharma, Chairman, Himachal Gramin Bank, it is admitted that the deceased brother of the petitioner was serving in the respondent-Bank as a Clerk and he died on 5th June, 1991. It is also admitted that father and mother of the petitioner through communications Annexures P-l and P-2, respectively, requested the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. However, it is asserted that as per records of respondent No. 1 late Rajesh Kumar Sood has not shown either his parents or the petitioner as dependents upon him during his life time. The minimum educational qualification essential for the post of Clerk is also admitted to be a Matriculate. In this reply, it is submitted that sponsoring Bank has got a Scheme for providing employment to the dependents of its deceased employees on compassionate grounds to eligible persons with the object that in the event of the sole bread-winner of the family if dies in harness, the family should be provided immediate rehabilitary measures by accommodating one eligible member of the family so that the family does not starve due to sudden death of the bread-winner. It is asserted that the petitioner is now of marriageable age and after her marriage she would migrate to her in-laws, thus the very purpose of provisions of the Scheme would be defeated It is also stated that the respondents are prepared to provide employment to the dependents of the deceased employees in an appropriate and deserving case. Further defence of the respondents is that besides the pension being earned by the father of the petitioner, Smt. Kamla mother of late Rajesh Kumar was paid Rs 38,328 out of the Provident Fund dues, gratuity and family pension etc An additional amount of Rs 18,633 plus interest is being paid by the Commissioner, Provident Fund to the mother of the deceased. It n also asserted that the father of the petitioner is a retired Post Master and is drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 1,855 and he is also working as an agent for the sale of post office securities and National Saving Certificates etc , from where also be is learnt to be drawing sufficient income. It n also asserted that the father of the petitioner is a retired Post Master and is drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 1,855 and he is also working as an agent for the sale of post office securities and National Saving Certificates etc , from where also be is learnt to be drawing sufficient income. The respondents have also asserted that elder brother of the petitioner Shri Rakesh Sood is employed as Clerk in U. Co, Bank and that his wife is also serving in the same Bank. The elder sister of the petitioner is stated to be a House wife and is married to a Junior Engineer. It is further asserted that father of the petitioner owns 12 Kanals land, one Pucca building at Village Kotlu, District Kangra, and another ‘Pucca’ residential house at Maranda. The respondents have further asserted that the parents of the petitioner are having Saving Bank Account(s) with different Banks wherein substantial amounts have been deposited/withdrawn from time to time by them. In addition to sufficient income of the family of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner Smt Kamla Devi is the only daughter of her parents and is the sole beneficiary of the property of her mother and she is also drawing total income from that property. It is also denied that late Rajesh Kumar was the only earning member of the family and was supporting his parents as well as the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not at all entitled to any benefit of employment on compassionate grounds. 4. In rejoinder to the reply-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated her stand laid in the writ petition. However, in reply to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reply-affidavit, she has asserted that her father is getting monthly pension of Rs* 1,535 and doe to old age he is not in a position to work as an agent for the sale of Post Office Securities and of National Saving Certificates. It is stated tbat during the year 1992 the father of the petitioner could earn only Rs 1,156 as commission. She has alleged that the amount of Provident Fund of her late brother has been spent on his last rites etc. The petitioner has categorically stated that her elder brother is living separately with his family and is not supporting the petitioner and her old parents. She has alleged that the amount of Provident Fund of her late brother has been spent on his last rites etc. The petitioner has categorically stated that her elder brother is living separately with his family and is not supporting the petitioner and her old parents. The building in village Kotlu is not a ‘Pucca’ building and the same has gone in the share of younger brother of her father and her father has no claim over the same. So far as the share of the mother of the petitioner in the property of her parents is concerned, it is submitted that her mother would get only half of the share in the land as the land is in the possession of the tenants. The petitioner has reaffirmed that the income of the family is not sufficient to bear the day to day requirements of the family and she was totally dependent of the income of the deceased brother. It is also submitted by her that the pensionary benefits have been utilized on the construction of the house as well as certain donations made to Shri Chamunda Mandir Committee for providing peace to the departed soul of the deceased as he died in harness. Photostat copies of the receipts of donations are annexed as Annexure P-6< 5. The first submission of Shri B. P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning reasons We find substance in this contention. The respondents have tried to supplement the reasons in their reply-affidavit which is not permissible. It is clear from a bare perusal of decision dated 1st July, 1992 (Annexure P-3), that it contains no reasons. It is settled principle of law that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority must contain reasons for rejection, it is appropriate to refer two decisions of Supreme Court in support of our view. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, Bose, J. speaking for the Court, in paragraphs 9 and 10 observed, thus 2 ".........We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. “...........Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order." 6. In another decision Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, AIR 1978 SC 851, the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 has observed as under : "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 7. The second contention raised by Shri B. P. Sharma, on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground against the post of her late brother. He submits that the pleas taken by the respondents in their affidavit are imaginary, afterthought and based on no material. He has relied upon decisions of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ratni Devi v. The Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, (1987) 3 All India Services Law Journal 186 and Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench > in Smt Vidya Devi v. Union of India and others, (1989) 3 All India Services Law Journal (CAT) 22, 8. Shri A K. Goel, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has vehemently contended that the petitioner was not dependent upon her deceased brother and her father and mother have sufficient income to support her and themselves. The elder brother of the petitioner and his wife are both employed in the service of U Co. Bank and have been supporting the petitioner and her parents. The elder brother of the petitioner and his wife are both employed in the service of U Co. Bank and have been supporting the petitioner and her parents. He submits that the father of the petitioner is a retired Post Master and is drawing a monthly pension of Rs 1,855, besides he is also working as an agent for the sale of Post Office Securities and National Saving Certificates etc., from where also he is drawing sufficient income According to him, the spirit of the Scheme shows that person like the petitioner is not entitled for the claim of employment as of right and her claim was rejected after due consideration by the respondents. 9. Before dealing with the contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Scheme. 10. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a Scheme called "Scheme for Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds in Regional Rural Banks, which was circulated vide No. F. 7 (12)/82-RRB, dated New Delhi, 5th July, 1982. 11. Clause 3 of the aforesaid Scheme reads as under:— "The Bank may, at its discretion, appoint in the bank, in any of the posts mentioned hereunder. the widow or a son or daughter of a deceased employee of the bank or a near relative nominated by the widow on whom she will be wholly dependent and who would give in writing that he or she would look after the family of the deceased employee, if the widow or son or daughter or a near relative, as the case may be, fulfils the criteria for appointment under the Scheme. Where the deceased employee was a widower or a bachelor* the Bank may exercise its discretion in this regard, by making enquiries of the next elder in the family." Sub clause (e) of Clause 2 defines Dependent. Dependent means; "a widow, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister of the deceased employee or any other close relative nominated by the widow when the deceased employee has left behind no children of his own eligible for appointment and on whom she will be wholly dependent." 12. Dependent means; "a widow, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister of the deceased employee or any other close relative nominated by the widow when the deceased employee has left behind no children of his own eligible for appointment and on whom she will be wholly dependent." 12. It is clear that the spirit of working out of the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist those who have been left indigents due to the unfortunate deaths of their near and dear in harness and to provide employment to the dependents to save them from facing starvation and hardship. 13. As regards the submission of Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the respondents regarding sufficiency of income of the parents of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that there is nothing on record to hold that the income of the family of the petitioner is sufficient to maintain herself and her old parents. The petitioner has categorically stated that her father is getting meagre amount of monthly pension, which is the only source of income of the family. The amount of Provident Fund of her late brother has been spent on his last rites, on the construction of the house and certain donations made to Shri Chamunda Mandir Committee according to the religious ceremonies for providing peace to the departed soul of the deceased. According to her, her elder brother is living separately with his family and is not supporting the petitioner and her old parents. She has also stated that her mother would get only 1/2 of the share in the land, which is not sufficient to maintain the family. 14. From the above referred provisions of the Scheme, we are of the view that it ill behoves the respondents in the present case to raise the plea that the petitioners family has got sufficient income to maintain herself and her old parents and that the petitioner is of marriageable age and after her marriage she would migrate to her in-laws, What is more, if she gets employment it is possible that she will get a suitable match for her marriage on account of her being a serving girl. In such a situation the parents can be lessended with the worries of searching a suitable and respectable boy for their daughter. In such a situation the parents can be lessended with the worries of searching a suitable and respectable boy for their daughter. She will earn her livelihood from the job and will not be dependent upon her aged parents, who have lost their son at the prime age. 15. No doubt, the mother of the petitioner has received financial benefits amounting to Rs. 56,961 approximately, but having regard to the statement of the petitioner that the said amount has been spent upon the last rites of her deceased brother, construction of house and donations to charitable institution, the said amount can, by no stretch of reasoning, be considered to be left with the petitioner and her parents. Likewise, the amount of pension is meagre. The mere fact that elder brother of the petitioner is self-supporting would not warrant that he must be supporting the petitioner and his old parents as the same has been denied by the petitioner. Already a period of more than two years has elapsed since the death of Shri Rajesh Kumar so it would be well presumed that the family must have maintain itself on the meagre amount of pension of the father of the petitioner to tide over the difficult times. Hence the respondents are expected to have a liberal approach having regard to the beneficient nature of the policy of compassionate employment. To urge that the petitioner is of marriageable age and after her marriage she would migrate to her in-laws, would tantamount to defeat the very purpose of the Scheme and the object underlying the policy rendering minimum financial assistance to the indigent and needy heirs of a deceased Gramin Bank employee. We find that the stand taken by the respondents is wholly untenable and hyper-technical in law as well as in equity- 16. In Ratni DevVs case (supra), the Court has observed as under: “........ The object of the said instructions of the Board is simple, that is, if an employee of the Board has died in harness, one of his dependents or family members should be provided a suitable employment, keeping in view his qualifications etc, under the Board itself. It is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of these instructions that some other member of the family of the deceased employee has also been able to seek employment some where else, that is, not with the Board. It is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of these instructions that some other member of the family of the deceased employee has also been able to seek employment some where else, that is, not with the Board. Therefore, the fact that the elder son of the deceased happens to be in employment of some Bank cannot deprive the petitioner of her claim to secure employment to her son under the Board in whose service her husband was employed before his death." 17. In Smt Vidya Dev’s case (supra), Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, while dealing with a case of widow of the deceased employee, has stated, thus: “-.........In a welfare State like ours, the cherised goal is to lift the poors and down trodden above the poverty line. The mere fact that one of the minor sons of the applicant will become major in a couple of years and will be able to earn well, is not ground to deny-employment to the applicant on compassionate grounds at present. Likewise, the fact that one of her sons is major and is self-supporting, would not warrant that he must be supporting her and his minor brothers and sisters." 18. In one more decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Chandro Devi and another v. The State of Haryana and another, (1993) 5 SLR 623, the widow of the deceased employee moved an application for appointment of her elder son, namely, Krishan Kumar to the post of Draftsman on compassionate ground During the pendency of the case the son of the widow got employment in Indian Air Force, She moved a second application for reservation of service to her another son i e. petitioner No 2 and the same was rejected by the State Government on the ground that the application for appointment has to be made within three years from the date of the death of employee and further stated that the elder son of the widow has already been employed in Indian Air Force. Learned Single Judge has held that the elder son of the widow had not got employment on compassionate ground but by dint of his own merit, he was selected in Indian Air Force and the younger son of the deceased employee was held entitled to be employed commensurate to his educational qualifications. 19. Learned Single Judge has held that the elder son of the widow had not got employment on compassionate ground but by dint of his own merit, he was selected in Indian Air Force and the younger son of the deceased employee was held entitled to be employed commensurate to his educational qualifications. 19. In the light of the above observations, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 1st July, 1992 (Annexure P-3) and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner against a post of Clerk in the service of the respondent-Bank within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000. Writ petition allowed.