Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 967 (PAT)

Neelam Gurung v. Union of India

2000-08-08

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2000
ORDER In this writ petition, petitioner is widow of late Binod Kumar Gurung, who died in harness on 19.1.1995 while posted as Constable in C.R.P.F. at Imphal. Petitioner has sought for direction to the Respondents to give her appointment on the post of Cook or Jalwahak or any suitable post in C.R.P.F. on compassionate ground, if necessary 'by creating supernumerary post and to quash the order dated 13.6.2000 of I.G., C.R.P.F., Patna, contained in Annexure-9 informing her that there is no vacancy of 'JALWAHAK MAHILA' or SAFAI KARAMCHARI (ASPATAL)/COOK (ASPATAL)'. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner soon after the death of her husband applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.3.1995 on any suitable post. It appears that for the first time she got response some time in February, 1997 asking her to submit certificate of passing first-aid test from Red Cross Society and also willingness certificate for the post of Ward-girl. She sent the required certificate on 8.4.1997 and thereafter sent reminder also on 15.4.1997 to I.G.P., C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector Patna vide Annexure-2. On 12.1.1998 the Commandant, 81 Bn. C.R.P.F. vide letter contained in Annexure-3 forwarded her case of appointment on compassionate ground to the Additional D.I.G., Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat with a request for early action. According to the petitioner medical test and other test were held for the post of Ward-girl but she was somehow not selected. She again sent representation vide Annexure-4 for her appointment on compassionate ground on any suitable post, as she was facing great hardship in maintaining herself and her children. On 21.1.1999 the Commandant vide Annexure-5 again requested the Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat to assess the suitability of the petitioner on any post in C.R.P.F. Petitioner was communicated by registered letter dated 13th February, 1999 by Additional D.I.G., contained in Annexure-6, whereby she was asked to report on 22.2.1999 with all relevant papers for getting appointment on compassionate ground on the post of cook. It is claimed that the petitioner reported and her medical test was held at Group Centre, Mokamaghat, but again she was not selected saying that all ten vacant posts of Cook were filled up and now there is no vacant post of Cook. However, vide letter dated 1 C h June, 1999, contained in Annexure-7, I.G., C.R.PF. It is claimed that the petitioner reported and her medical test was held at Group Centre, Mokamaghat, but again she was not selected saying that all ten vacant posts of Cook were filled up and now there is no vacant post of Cook. However, vide letter dated 1 C h June, 1999, contained in Annexure-7, I.G., C.R.PF. Bihar Sector informed her that if she expresses her willingness to get employment as Mahila Jalwahak then she should submit her willingness certificate for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground as Mahlla Jalwahak. Petitioner submitted her willingness on 17.12.1999 vide Annexure-B, but here claim for appointment on compassionate ground has again been rejected vide impugned order (Annexure-9) on the plea of non-availability of the post. Despite sufficient opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. However, Mr. Tripathi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has not been allowed on account of non-availability of post as is evident from Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles decided by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, reported in 1998(2) PLJR (SC) 181. It is not the case of the Respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, yet she has been kept deprived of such appointment for now over five years on one pretext or the other. As per the principle decided by the Apex Court, the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Thus, it is purely on humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Thus, it is purely on humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. The Supreme Court in the said case has directed that if no Class III post is available in the Institution in which the deceased employee was employed or in any other Institution in the district, the said Respondent would be appointed against a Class IV post in the institution in which the deceased employee was employed and a supernumerary post in Class IV be created for the purpose. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is quite evident that the Respondent-authorities instead of following the principle decided by the Apex Court has arbitrarily kept the petitioner deprived of the benefit of compassionate appointment for now over five years which cannot be appreciated by this Court. The rejection of the case of the petitioner on the face of the aforementioned facts every time is malafide and just to keep the petitioner deprived of the said benefit. Having regard to the principle decided by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case in which reliance has also been placed on the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Smt. Sushma Gosain & ors. v. Union of India & others, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the Respondent-authorities, in my opinion, were bound to provide with an appointment soon after she filed an application in March, 1995 itself, i.e. immediately after the death of her husband. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. The Respondents are directed to pay the said amount of cost and provide with an appointment to the petitioner within four weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.