Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1042 (JHR)

Lal Deo Oraon v. Steel Authority Of India Limited

2006-08-10

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH, M.Y.EQBAL

body2006
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to give him appointment on compassionate ground as the process of appointment, although initiated in 2004, has not been finalized till date. 3. The petitioners father, late Ghurna Oraon, was in the service of the respondents - Steel Authority of India Limited. He died of cancer on 1.1.2003 while he was in service. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme of the company, but no decision has been taken. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that there is no rule for compassionate appointment in case of death of the employee of the respondents-Company. There is a provision of substitution of employment under the Scheme, According to the scheme, if the employee is suffering from any of four dreaded diseases, mentioned therein, resulting in total disability, then such employment shall be substituted by a male dependent. A copy of the scheme has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. I have perused the scheme framed by the respondents for substitution of the employee suffering from dreaded diseases. According to this scheme, a male dependent may be substituted in place of the employee suffering from four types of diseases, namely, cancer, aids, total renal failure and total paralysis resulting in complete crippling of body movement. According to the procedure, the request for substitution of employment will be given by the employee suffering from diseases to his or her controlling officer. 6. In the instant case, there is no scheme for compassionate appointment. There is scheme only for substitution of employment for the employees suffering from dreaded diseases provided the said employee made an application for substitution of his dependent in his place. As noticed above, no such request was made by the deceased-employee before his death and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the scheme. 7. In such a circumstances, this Court cannot direct the respondents to give appointment on compassionate ground. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr. As noticed above, no such request was made by the deceased-employee before his death and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the scheme. 7. In such a circumstances, this Court cannot direct the respondents to give appointment on compassionate ground. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr. , Their Lordship observed: Thus, apart from the directions an to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the 2 nd respondent. To straightway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment dated 19-10-1993 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.