Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 300 (KER)

Superintendent, R. M. S v. Kavitha K. Francis

2013-03-26

B.KEMAL PASHA, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Postal establishment challenges the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to consider the case of the respondent herein for compassionate appointment. The applicant, Kavitha, a female aged about 32 years at the time of the application before the Tribunal, lost her father on 03.08.2009, while working as a Mailman, which is a Group-D post. The certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Kanayannur Taluk shows that late Francis, a Roman Catholic Christian, had married Usha belonging to Hindu Ezhava community. Their daughter Kavitha is thus the daughter of an inter-caste married couple. 2. Going by the pleadings contained in the Original Application and in the reply statement filed by the establishment before the Tribunal, it can no more be treated as a matter in dispute that the applicant Kavitha, the married daughter of the deceased employee, has two children and she and her mother virtually strive hard to sustain themselves. The basic facts reflected in the pleadings and the documentary evidence including the representation of the applicant and her mother, which is produced by the establishment along with the reply statement, are to the effect that the applicant Kavitha's husband turned out to be a drunkard and he does not care for the family. He had invited sufficient financial problems, which led ultimately to the homestead of Kavitha's parents being sold and she and her mother are now residing in a rented premises trying to meet the ends, taking care also of the two children. 3. The pleadings in the reply statement of the establishment before the Tribunal pointedly show that their stand before the Tribunal was that Kavitha, having been married, it is the liability of her husband to take care of and provide for her and the children and such responsibility is on him. The fact that the family had lost their assets on account of the waggeries of the son-in-law of the home cannot be treated as a situation where the daughter of the deceased government servant could claim employment on compassionate grounds; contended the establishment. We see that it was specific pleading of the establishment before the Tribunal that a daughter, on being married, ceased to be a member of the family of the government servant concerned, for being extended compassionate appointment. 4. Unfortunately, the compassionate appointment scheme was not specifically placed before the Tribunal. We see that it was specific pleading of the establishment before the Tribunal that a daughter, on being married, ceased to be a member of the family of the government servant concerned, for being extended compassionate appointment. 4. Unfortunately, the compassionate appointment scheme was not specifically placed before the Tribunal. Essentially therefore, the Tribunal appears to have committed a superfluous error in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order by saying that "In this case the respondent had to act as per the rules on the subject by which the married daughter is not treated as a dependent". Submission was made before us on behalf of the establishment that the Tribunal had essentially accepted the establishment's contention on the basis of the rules. This is wholly unfounded. 5. We have looked into the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government which is covered by the revised instructions, as provided to us by the learned senior panel counsel for the establishment. The provision therein is for assistance to "dependent family member". For that purpose, in so far as it relates to a government servant, as is involved in the nature of the litigation which we are now considering, "dependent family member" means (a) spouse; or (b) son (including adopted son); or (c) daughter (including adopted daughter); who was wholly dependent on the government servant. In the event of the government servant being unmarried, the siblings of the government servant concerned would also fall within the scope of that term. A plain reading of the provisions of the Scheme shows that it does not envisage the daughter, ceasing to be dependent, by the operation of the Scheme, merely on account of the incident of her getting married. 6. In the ultimate analysis, what is required to be understood is as to whether the applicant was wholly dependent on the government servant concerned. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has assimilated the entire materials on record and has come to the clear conclusion that the applicant, essentially a victim of impecunious circumstances, left with two daughters to be taken care of, dependent entirely on her parents for support. The homestead, where the deceased Mailman Francis and his wife were residing, has been sold off. The homestead, where the deceased Mailman Francis and his wife were residing, has been sold off. His widow and daughter with the little ones are now living in a rented home even as disclosed by the representation made in 2010 by them and produced before the Tribunal by the establishment. Taking the entire facts into consideration, the Tribunal has, in our view, rendered a verdict without breaking the law but rendering justice. The Tribunal essentially stated that the Rules have been followed by the establishment. In fact, it had not. We say so because, on the basis of the compassionate appointment scheme that now exists, it can never be said that the mere reason that a daughter of an employee dying in harness gets married does not take her away from the zone of consideration as a dependent family member. In this context, the reference made by the Tribunal to the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by this Court is apposite, though the learned senior panel counsel has rightly pointed out that the fact that it could have been a case where the daughter was unmarried at the time of making the application and later got married, in our view, makes no difference. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be held to be vitiated on any ground of illegality or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Original Petition fails. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed in limine.