Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 992 (RAJ)

UCO Bank v. Maya L. Dhingrani

2004-07-19

K.C.SHARMA, S.K.KESHOTE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition and the special appeal. There cannot be two view and we have no hesitation to state that the law is almost settled that the very object of appointment of a dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve unexpected hardship and distress caused to the family by sad demise of earning member of the family. It is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2, the employee of the appellants died while in service on 7th of March, 1986. It is true that on the date of the death of the employee the respondent No. 2 and another daughter were aged 12 and 10 years, respectively, minors. In para No. 7 of the writ petition the petitioners respondents admitted that the petitioner respondent No. 1 the widow of the deceased made an application in the Bank on 4.4.1988 for giving her appointment on compassionate ground. Though she stated in this para that she did not press her claim further for appointment on compassionate ground but a mere perusal of the document Annexure-6 to the writ petition leaves no doubt whatsoever that her application was dismissed on the ground that the same was not made within the prescribed period i.e. One year of the date of the death of the employee. 2. The respondents have proceeded in the matter as if the appointment on compassionate ground is bearer cheque which can be encashed at any time or that the compassionate appointment is a matter of right or course. The respondent No. 2 on 10th of May, 1991, as per her case, filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Her date of birth is 1.6.1975. Thus on that day she did not attain the age of majority. Another application was made on 28th of June, 1992. On that date also she was minor. Third application was filed on 24th of June, 1993 which was after attaining the age of majority. This application was not bonafide.The learned counsel for the appellants is correct that due to the death of the employee the family has not faced any financial hardship or distress. On that date also she was minor. Third application was filed on 24th of June, 1993 which was after attaining the age of majority. This application was not bonafide.The learned counsel for the appellants is correct that due to the death of the employee the family has not faced any financial hardship or distress. Had it been a case of unexpected immediate hardship and distress to the family by sad demise of the employee, the widow would not have withdrawn her claim or on rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground she would not have sat silent. That apart she has not made any application within the limitation prescribed for making thereof which goes to show and makes it clear that it is not a case of unexpected hardship and distress caused to the family due to the sad demise of the employee. 3. In the facts of this case and the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court this claim of appointment on compassionate ground lodged by the respondent No. 2 is not sustainable. The reference here may have to the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others 1996(1) SLR 7 wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under, "3. It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor, the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the court is required to examine whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, II amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules." 4. The reference may have to another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhalla Ram v. Union of India & Others AIR 1999 SC 564 . The reference may have to another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhalla Ram v. Union of India & Others AIR 1999 SC 564 . 5. Applications have been filed by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1991 and last in the year 1993, but she filed the petition only on 20.5.1997 i.e. after six years of making the first application and almost after three years of making of the last application. This delay is also fatal to the case of the petitioners respondents. 6. From the prayer made in the writ petition we have seen that the petitioners respondents are claiming the appointment on compassionate ground for petitioner respondent No. 2 and not for petitioner respondent No. 1. In the facts of this case the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in granting relief in favour of the petitioner respondent No. 2. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this special appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment dated 6.7.2001 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3017/1997 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is dismissed in toto. 8. In view of this order, the stay application, filed along with the appeal, also stands disposed of. *******