Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 479 (GUJ)

RAJESHBHAI SHAMALBHAI VANSOLA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-04-04

SONIA GOKANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition challenges the action of the respondents-authorities of not considering the case of the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment, in the following factual background. 2. The petitioner’s father joined service as a Teacher on 25th September 1994. His service record was clean and he continued to serve as a Primary School Teacher in the Banaskantha District. Father of the petitioner passed away on 4th September 2006. The petitioner, being the eldest son, on seeking consent of other members of family, made an application for grant of compassionate employment by approaching the respondent no. 2. Such application was preferred within a fortnight of the death of his father ie., on 18th September 2006. 3. Vide Order dated 4th December 2008, such request came to be rejected. Such action of the respondent is challenged on the ground that the rejection has come on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 29th March 2007 governing the field on compassionate appointment at the time when decision was rendered, whereas, the Government Resolution which in fact governed the field, when an application was made by the petitioner, was dated 10th March 2000. It is, therefore, urged that the resolution which was not in existence cannot have retrospective effect nor can application be decided on the strength of such resolution. It is averred by the petitioner that no limit of income was prescribed in the earlier resolution, whereas, the subsequent Government Resolution has stated the limit of income of the family, and therefore, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On issuance of notice, affidavit-in-reply is filed inter alia contending that the petitioner’s family received a sum of Rs. 12.63,750/= as the terminal benefits and the family pension of Rs. 7,795/= is also being received by the petitioner’s family on regular basis. The intention of the Government since is to provide assistance to the families whose financial condition is very weak, no compassionate employment can be given to the petitioner in wake of monetary benefits received by it. It is also urged that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is that the family does not undergo sudden crisis on account of losing an earning member of the family, and therefore, compassionate employment is not a matter of right. It is also urged that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is that the family does not undergo sudden crisis on account of losing an earning member of the family, and therefore, compassionate employment is not a matter of right. It is further urged that having received the terminal benefits which crosses a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as also regular family pension, neither the petitioner nor his family can claim the benefit of Government Resolution. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Darji appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action on the part of the respondents is contrary to the settled law. He urged that the division Bench of this Court has held that the resolution which governs the field at the time of making the application shall need to apply in case of compassionate appointment and not the resolution subsequently brought into existence. He further urged that if time is spent in deciding the application, and in the interregnum period changes are made on administrative side, that hardly is a fault of the petitioner who had already made an application within a fortnight. 6. Learned APP Shri Jaimin Gandhi strongly objected to such proposition. He urged that even in the earlier resolution of 10th March 2000, the object for providing the compassionate appointment was very clear. It is to tide over the sudden economic crisis that such appointment is to be made. However, on having found that the retiral/death benefits are sufficient to take care of the family’s requirement coupled with the amount of pension, the Court may not interfere. 7. Upon thus hearing both the sides and considering the material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the father of the petitioner had an unblemished career as a Primary School Teacher. He unfortunately passed away while in service on 4th September 2006. 8. The present petitioner is the eldest son, who applied to the respondentauthority for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Such application made on 18th September 2006 was negatived vide Order dated 4th December 2008 taking the help of GAD Resolution No. BRT102007188K dated 29th March 2007. 9. Admittedly, the Government Resolution which governed the field when the application was made, was G.A.D Resolution No. BRT2197K dated 10th March 2000. The bone of contention is the prescription of the income limit in the subsequently passed resolution. 9. Admittedly, the Government Resolution which governed the field when the application was made, was G.A.D Resolution No. BRT2197K dated 10th March 2000. The bone of contention is the prescription of the income limit in the subsequently passed resolution. The Government Resolution dated 10th March 2000 prescribed no income limit for giving compassionate appointment whereas, Clause 2 (8) of the subsequent resolution in categorical terms specifies that while making an appointment on compassionate grounds, the amount received by the family by way of terminal benefits, which includes gratuity, group insurance, conversion of leave, leave encashment, GPF as also the family pension shall need to be taken into account, over and above the immovable and movable assets of the deceased and of the family. This is so required, keeping in mind the very object of appointments on compassionate basis. After considering all these aspects, if the family is found to be in a weak financial condition, such appointment is needed to be granted after due scrutiny. Over and above this vital change, there are other changes made in the said resolution of the year 2007, however, for the purpose of deciding this petition they do not require any discussion. 10. The resolution which governed the field on 10th March 2000 specified the object in ScheduleI to state that with an objective to assist the family of the deceased and to overcome the crisis and help easing the financial crisis, one of the members of the family would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It of course further stated that no ceiling is prescribed with regard to the income of the family. 11. Undisputedly, the decision rendered in the case of the present petitioner in the month of December 2008 is on the basis of Resolution dated 29th March 2007 and not 10th March 2007. 12. Reference at this stage is necessary to the law on the subject. This Court, in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Budhabhai A. Chavda, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1236 was considering the question of compassionate appointment, where an application on a plain paper was made by the dependent of the deceased on the next date after the death of the employee. This Court, in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Budhabhai A. Chavda, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1236 was considering the question of compassionate appointment, where an application on a plain paper was made by the dependent of the deceased on the next date after the death of the employee. Such an application made in the year 2001 was considered and rejected in the year 2004 on the ground that the requisite documents were submitted after six months of the death of the employee and hence it was timebarred. Such order dated 10th March 2004 was challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter back to the authority with a direction to consider the matter for compassionate appointment afresh, without being influenced by earlier decisions dated 13.1.2004 and 18.8.2005, after considering the Government Resolution dated 10th March 2000 within a period of two months. Such direction was never challenged by the Government. 13. The State, in the said case, once again, despite such specific directions vide Order dated 5th March 2007 rejected the application of the applicant for compassionate appointment by its order dated 20th June 2007 on the same grounds viz., that the respondent-applicant had not made the application within the prescribed time-limit and that he had not passed SSC Examination. The Division Bench, in light of these facts, held and observed as under:- “19. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the law laid down by the Apex Court is that earlier application for compassionate appointment has to be decided as per the Scheme and educational qualification which was applicable at the time the application was made by the respondent, claiming appointment on compassionate ground, if the authorities were guilty of unreasonable delay. The decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Savji Padaya applies with full force to the instant case. 20. We are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants in Raj Kumar (Supra) and Patel Sunilkumar Arvindbhai (Supra) are of no help to the appellants. The decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Savji Padaya applies with full force to the instant case. 20. We are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants in Raj Kumar (Supra) and Patel Sunilkumar Arvindbhai (Supra) are of no help to the appellants. The application of the respondent for seeking compassionate appointment was made well within the period of three months prescribed for making application for compassionate appointment and it was not barred by time limit prescribed by the Scheme and educational qualification of Standard IX pass which was prescribed under the Scheme at the time when the application was made by the respondent for compassionate appointment would be applicable. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for compassionate appointment and the delay in considering the application for compassionate appointment of the respondent by the appellants was due to inaction of the officers/employees of the appellants who did not act with responsibility though a legal duty was entrusted on them under the Scheme but they violated the procedure as prescribed under the Scheme for years together. The delay of nine years would be defeat the genuine claim of the respondent and the respondent is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.” 14. The Apex Court in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 was considering the challenge made by the Union of India to the judgment and order of the High Court directing the Union to reconsider the application of respondent made on compassionate grounds. The Apex Court held that the appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, taking into consideration the fact of the death of an employee while in service, leaving his family without any means of livelihood. The Court held, thus “10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, the applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 15. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 , while dealing with a similar issue ie., whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as under : “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities .. to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased ... and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules ... Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules.” 16. This Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265 , placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in GM (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 , held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas, the scheme provides that in case of family of the deceased gets the retiral/terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependent of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 13. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 384 , this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate grounds in a similar scheme making the dependent of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash [Supra] had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the Scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds.” 17. On having found that the family of the deceased was given terminal benefit; excluding GPF to the tune of Rs. 4.40 lakhs and the said amount being more than Rs. 3 lakhs, the requirement under the prevalent scheme, the Apex Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court. 18. The Division Bench of this Court in ReBudhabhai A. Chavda {Supra} was mainly relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Jagdish Savji [SLP (C) No. 31057/2010 :: 19.10.2010] where applications made by the applicants for appointment on compassionate ground as per the extant policy were kept pending for years together and the same were rejected on the ground that in terms of Circular dated 29th March 2007 , the minimum revised qualification is SSC pass, which qualification, the said respondents did not possess. The Court further directed the Government to dispose of the applications for compassionate appointment within a maximum period of six months. This was so done in absence of any explanation by the State as to why the applications were not considered for years together. In the matter before the Division Bench, in this case also, the application was kept pending for nearly nine years, although made within prescribed period of three months. 19. In case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in 2013 (10) Scale 223, on the death of his father in harness, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 12th May 2006. The new scheme was brought into force on 12th June 2006. Clause 14 of the said scheme provided for giving ex gratia payment, if certain conditions were satisfied in respect of compassionate appointment in all pending applications seeking such appointment. The Apex Court held and observed as under : “5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The Apex Court held and observed as under : “5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 , this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under:- "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased..... The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned..... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis." (Emphasis added) 7. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis." (Emphasis added) 7. An ameliorating relief' should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 8. The Courts and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments. 9. In A. Umarani v Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4504 , while dealing with the issue, this Court held that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc., as the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal. 12. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 . Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the scheme involved herein, which reads asunder: "14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of pending applications : The Scheme will come into force with effect from the date it is approved by the Board of Directors. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment of exgratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the terms and conditions of this scheme." 20. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India & Anr. (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered. 14. In view of the above position, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. 15. The respondent may apply for consideration of his case under the new Scheme and the appellant shall consider his case strictly in accordance with clause 14 of the said new Scheme within a period of three months from the date of receiving of application.” 21. In case of State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Rajkumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 , the Apex Court held that it is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule that recruitment to public services should be on basis of merit, by open invitation, providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The Court also held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is traceable only to specific scheme framed by employer therefor and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme and appointment under such scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. Therefore, when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment will also cease to exist, unless saved. Thus, a mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. In words of the Bench, “7. Normally the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. In words of the Bench, “7. Normally the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the scheme in force at the time of death would apply. On the other hand if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee, if a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfill any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant, on making the application and the scheme that was in force at the time when the application for compassionate appointment was filed, will apply. But such schemes are rare and in fact, virtually nil. 8. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfills all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a selection committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. Further where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.” 22. The Court, while setting aside the order of Division Bench of the High Court, where it directed reconsideration of the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment on the basis of the earlier scheme, permitted the respondent and his family to file fresh application under the new scheme and directed the Bank to process such application, if and when made and pay the lump sum ex gratia amount due in terms of the scheme to the beneficiaries within four months of the receipt of the application. 23. Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Ganshyambhai Dilapbhai Dharjiya & Anr. [Letters Patent Appeal No. 2472/2009 :: Decided on 23rd November 2010] in a case where the learned Single Judge directed to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment with the observation that payment of terminal benefits to the family of the deceased was on account of statutory obligation on the part of the employer and the same cannot be a set off for negativing the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, allowed the appeal of the State by setting aside such order, by holding thus “2. There was no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was dismissed even after order dated 29.7.2009 of this Court (Coram: M.R.Shah,J.) in SCA No.7044 of 2009, wherein direction was issued to the appellants herein to reconsider the application of the respondent in light of the policy prevailing at the time when the petitioner submitted his application in March, 2006. Thereafter, by order dated 24.9.2009, order rejecting the application of the appellant was made in terms of the policy and resolution dated 10.3.2000 and on the basis that heirs of the deceased employee were in receipt of monthly family pension of Rs.5,569/and had received retiral dues to the tune of Rs.12,61,936/. 3. A Division Bench of this Court has taken the view, in the context of the aforesaid policy, that the purpose of that policy and resolution was to help the bereaved family in the hour of financial crisis and the first condition for eligibility for compassionate appointment is also financial crisis of the dependent family. That view is supported by decision of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. M.T.Latheesh [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ]. Relying upon several such judgments, in LPA No.887 of 2010 (order dated 18.11.2010) and in LPA No.1049 of 2010 (decision of 03.5.2010) as also in LPA No.1054 of 2010 (order dated 16.9.2010), it is consistently held that persons in receipt of substantial amount by way pension or terminal benefits are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Following that view, the present appeal is required to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside with no order as to costs. Civil Application stands dismissed as not surviving.” 24. Challenge made to such decision before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] No. 7702 of 2011 by the respondent-original petitioner was not entertained by the Apex Court, by the following order : “The family pension of the petitioner is admittedly Rs. 5,569/= and the petitioner has got retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 12,61,936/=. The High Court has taken the view that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. In our opinion, no interference is required. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 25. Thus, from the discussion held hereinabove, it can be noted that the law on the subject is well settled. 12,61,936/=. The High Court has taken the view that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. In our opinion, no interference is required. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 25. Thus, from the discussion held hereinabove, it can be noted that the law on the subject is well settled. Compassionate appointment is not a right, however, a scheme as may be formulated by the State to help the family in harness to tied over the financial crisis, shall have to be given an effect to as would be enforced when the application is actually being considered and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of SBI v. Rajkumar [Supra]. To the facts of the applicant’s case, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Budhabhai A Chavda, following the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jagdish Savji [Supra] will not be applicable in as much as the application of the family member of the deceased were kept pending by the State in case of Budhabhai A Chavda [Supra] for nearly a decade and after the new scheme came, rigours of qualification prescribed under the new scheme were made applicable in case of those applicants. In such a background, the Apex Court held that in absence of any explanation on the part of the State as to why such applications were not considered for years together, the direction of the Court to consider such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the policy prevalent at the relevant time by making application, was upheld and such direction, considering the factual matrix, the Division Bench of course had followed. 26. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, on the death of father of the petitioner on 4th September 2006, new Government Resolution of 2007 came into force in about six months’ period. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar [Supra], the earlier scheme for compassionate appointment also did not contemplate any immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar [Supra], the earlier scheme for compassionate appointment also did not contemplate any immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Various factors were required to be considered, and therefore, a reasonable time of six months if had passed and in the meantime, new scheme is brought into force, consideration of application on the strength of such new scheme cannot be interfered with. 27. This Court cannot be oblivious of the well laid down judicial pronouncements that the very object of appointment on compassionate ground is to assist the dependent family member at the time of crisis. The decision of Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. M.T Latheesh, reported in 2006 (7) SCC 350 and the later decision rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7702/2011 makes it abundantly clear that the terminal benefits given to the petitioner’s family when are substantial, coupled with the amount of pension, no case is made out by the petitioner, for this Court to exercise extra ordinary powers of writ. 28. Petition stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition Stands dismissed.