Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1824 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi

2013-10-17

DINESH MAHESHWARI, P.K.LOHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the non-applicants of Original Application ('OA') No. 135/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur ('the CAT') have questioned the order dated 26.08.2004, whereby the CAT has allowed the OA filed by the present respondent and has directed the present petitioners to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground with reference to the demise of her husband Patwari Ram. 2. The applicant-respondent made a prayer for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground with the submissions that her husband Shri Patwari Ram was employed as a temporary status employee with the Commanding Officer, 375 Coy ASC (Sup) Type C; and expired on 12.01.2004 while in service. It was submitted that the deceased employee was survived by his widow i.e. the applicant, four daughters and two sons; and that the family was in penury having no means of livelihood and no earning member with the eldest child being of the age of 16 years. Her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was turned down by the petitioners on the ground that there was no provision in the rules to accord employment to the dependents of the deceased employee, who was having only the temporary status as a casual labourer. Aggrieved, the respondent filed the OA aforesaid. 3. The OA was resisted by the present petitioners with the submissions that the husband of the applicant was absent without leave and as per post mortem report, the cause of death was head injury due to accident; and that no service record in respect of the applicant's husband was available since he was a temporary status labourer. It was submitted that the applicable scheme dated 09.10.1988 did not provide for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the persons holding only the temporary status. 4. Before the CAT, it was a position admitted on behalf of both the parties that controversy stood covered by a decision of CAT in the case of Smt. Santosh v. ICAR , decided on 31.05.2004. However, legal pleas were sought to be advanced before the CAT on behalf of the present petitioners. 5. The CAT found no reason to dilate much on the matter for the controversy being essentially covered with the decision in Smt. Santosh Devi (Supra) and, therefore, allowed the OA while observing, inter alia, as under:- "6. However, legal pleas were sought to be advanced before the CAT on behalf of the present petitioners. 5. The CAT found no reason to dilate much on the matter for the controversy being essentially covered with the decision in Smt. Santosh Devi (Supra) and, therefore, allowed the OA while observing, inter alia, as under:- "6. We have very carefully perused the decision in the case of Smt. Santosh (supra) and find that the controversy is fully covered by the same. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no need of any further discussion in the matter and the said judgment is being treated as part of this order. We have absolutely no hesitation in following the said decision and in deciding this O.A. on similar lines. 7. In the premises, the inescapable conclusion is that the Original Application has ample merit and substance and the same stands allowed, accordingly. The impugned order dated 23.02.2004 (Annex.A/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case for the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on a post she is eligible as a Casual labourer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the office memorandum dated 09.10.1988 and contended that the expression "Government Servant" for the purpose of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground only means Government servant appointed on regular employment post and not the one who is working on daily wages or casual apprentice or ad hoc or contract or re-employment basis. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another v. Santosh : (2006) 11 SCC 157 to submit that the rights sought to be claimed with reference to the service of an employee on temporary status have been held not available by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, has submitted that no case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction is made out, particularly when the CAT, after consideration of the ratio of the applicable decisions, has granted relief to the extent of consideration of the case of the applicant DBCWP respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, has submitted that no case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction is made out, particularly when the CAT, after consideration of the ratio of the applicable decisions, has granted relief to the extent of consideration of the case of the applicant DBCWP respondent. The learned counsel has pointed out that so far the decision of CAT in the case of Smt. Santosh v. ICAR on the issue of compassionate basis appointment to the dependent of a temporary status employees is concerned, the same was challenged in this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 4355/2004, which was considered and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 11.10.2004. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (No. 3305/2005) was also considered and dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.02.2005. The learned counsel has also pointed out that a similar nature case of Smt. Meema Devi was also taken up in a writ petition before this Court (CWP No. 3184/2001); and the said writ petition was also dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 18.01.2005. 8. Having examined the matter in its totality, we find no reason to consider interference in this matter. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAR v. Santosh Devi : 2006 (11) SCC 157 essentially relates to a claim of family pension made by the widow of a casual labourer, who had acquired temporary status. Therein, looking to the status of the employee and the applicable rules, the widow of the deceased employee was held not entitled to the family pension. Even in the said decision, this fact was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointment had been granted to the legal heirs of the deceased employee; and it was observed that even if such appointment was accepted to be regular, that would not alter the status of the employee in service. The said decision does not provide support to the contention of the petitioners. 10. So far the order of the Tribunal directing consideration of the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment is concerned, this Court has found in the order dated 11.10.2004 as passed in CWP No.4355/2004 that such an order, when not resulting in failure of substantial justice, does not warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. So far the order of the Tribunal directing consideration of the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment is concerned, this Court has found in the order dated 11.10.2004 as passed in CWP No.4355/2004 that such an order, when not resulting in failure of substantial justice, does not warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the order dated 11.10.2004, this Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- "Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no dispute in the fact that deceased had worked for more than 20 years with the petitioners and one fails to understand as to why permanent status has not been accorded to him. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there being no failure of substantial justice in directing compassionate appointment to the widow of the deceased by the Tribunal, who otherwise is entitled to such appointment". 11. The position aforesaid directly applies in the present case too; and the order passed by the CAT cannot be considered leading to the failure of justice so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******