Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 284 (GUJ)

Kishankumar Jaykaran Barot v. State of Gujarat

2015-03-13

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2015
Order Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed to direct the respondents to consider petitioner No. 1 for appointment with respondent No. 3 Department on compassionate grounds or, in the alternative, direct the respondent-authorities to grant lump sum compensation to the petitioners in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, without insistence on producing a succession certificate. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: Shri Jaykaran Mandas Barot, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2, died in harness as "A" Grade Police Constable on 05.08.2009. Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, which was in force at the time, petitioner No. 1 applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 23.03.2010, the respondents instructed petitioner No. 1 to move an application in the prescribed form with relevant documents. On 06.04.2011, petitioner No. 1 was instructed by the respondents to undergo a medical check-up and produce a certificate in respect of his chest measurement. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 appeared for a physical check-up and submitted the, necessary certificate dated 11.04.2011. According to the petitioners, even though petitioner No. 1 is eligible even on merits, he was not given appointment on compassionate grounds. On 13.08.2012, the respondent-authorities instructed petitioner No. 2 to produce a succession certificate for the grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 1, in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. The proceedings regarding grant of a succession certificate are pending in the competent Court. However, the respondents are insisting upon the production of a succession certificate and are not considering the case of the petitioners for grant of lump sum compensation in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. However, the respondents are insisting upon the production of a succession certificate and are not considering the case of the petitioners for grant of lump sum compensation in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that petitioner No. 1, is eligible for the grant of compassionate appointment and/or lump sum compensation in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 is the son of the deceased employee and petitioner No. 2 is his wife. There is no doubt regarding this fact in the minds of respondent-authorities. Neither the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, nor the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, stipulate that the eligible dependents of a deceased employee are to produce a succession certificate for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds or lump sum compensation. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that a succession certificate would be required if the dispute is regarding pension. However, in the present case, the dispute is not regarding pension but the petitioners are only asking for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds or lump sum financial aid in view of the changed policy dated 05.07.2011, for which there is no requirement in the said policy that a succession certificate is necessary. Hence, it is submitted that the prayers made in the petition may be granted and the respondents may be directed to pay lump sum compensation to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. 5. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while opposing the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the parents of the deceased employee and his brother have laid claim to the pension of the deceased. Moreover, the brother of the deceased has been made a nominee by the deceased. Therefore, the insistence by the respondent-Department for a succession certificate from the petitioners is just and proper, in view of the dispute between the family members. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and other documents on record. 7. Therefore, the insistence by the respondent-Department for a succession certificate from the petitioners is just and proper, in view of the dispute between the family members. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and other documents on record. 7. It is an undisputed position, not denied by the respondents even in their affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 16.12.2014, that petitioner No. 1 is the son of the deceased employee and petitioner No. 2 is his wife. There is no doubt in the mind of the respondents as to the identity of the petitioners. Insofar as the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment and/or lump sum compensation is concerned, it may be noted that in the earner Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, which was in force when the deceased expired, the members of the family of the deceased who were to be considered for the grant of compassionate appointment were (i) legitimate wife or husband of the deceased employee (ii) son or unmarried daughter (in case of childless employee, a legally adopted child under the Hindu Adoption Act, 1956 during the lifetime of the deceased employee). The policy dated 10.03.2000 is now no longer in force after the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, by which the policy of granting compassionate appointment has been done away with. Instead, it is contemplated that lump sum financial assistance would be paid to the legitimate wife or husband or son or unmarried daughter, including the legally adopted child under the Hindu Adoption Act, 1956, in case of a childless employee, who is fully dependent on the concerned employee at the time of his/her death. As the former policy dated 10.03.2000 has now been superseded, there remains no question of granting appointment on compassionate grounds to petitioner No. 1. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, concedes this point. He has submitted that the entitlement of the petitioners is for the grant of lump sum financial assistance, for which there is no rider in the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, to produce a succession certificate. 8. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, concedes this point. He has submitted that the entitlement of the petitioners is for the grant of lump sum financial assistance, for which there is no rider in the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, to produce a succession certificate. 8. Upon perusal of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, this Court finds that the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate are borne out to be correct, inasmuch as there is no requirement in the said Government Resolution that a wife, husband, son or unmarried daughter of a deceased employee should produce a succession certificate for the grant of lump sum financial assistance under the said policy. 9. It may be true that a dispute has been raised by the parents of the deceased employee and his brother, regarding the pensionary benefits of the deceased. The deceased appears to have made his brother a nominee. However, that dispute is regarding pension and has no relevance to the entitlement of the petitioners for lump sum financial assistance under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. The parents and brothers of the deceased employee are not eligible for the payment of lump sum financial aid as per the Government Resolution dated 05.0.2011. The petitioners, on the other hand, are eligible. If the petitioners are eligible in all respects for grant of lump sum financial assistance, which has not been denied by the respondents, this Court fails to understand why the benefit of the Policy contained in Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 is not being conferred upon them. The only reason stated by the respondents is that the petitioners should produce a succession certificate. As already stated hereinabove, this reason is not germane to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2000, which nowhere provides for such a requirement. In light of the above, in the considered view of the Court, the insistence on the part of the respondents that the petitioners should produce a succession certificate before they can be considered for the grant of lump sum financial assistance under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, is thoroughly unjustified and misconceived. 10. In light of the above, in the considered view of the Court, the insistence on the part of the respondents that the petitioners should produce a succession certificate before they can be considered for the grant of lump sum financial assistance under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, is thoroughly unjustified and misconceived. 10. The refusal to grant the petitioners lump sum financial assistance as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 without producing a succession certificate, defeats the very object and purpose of the policy, which is to provide timely monetary aid and succour to the bereaved family of the deceased, who have lost their breadwinner. The very purpose of the policy is to provide timely aid to the dependents of the deceased employee so that they may be able to tide over the financial crisis that has arisen due to the death of the employee. The insistence on the part of the respondents for a succession certificate before considering the case of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 and defeats the very purpose for which policy has been formulated. 11. For the aforestated reasons, the prayers made in the petition, to the extent of grant of lump sum financial aid, deserve to be granted. Accordingly, the following order is passed. 12. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for the grant of lump sum financial aid in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, without insisting on the production of a succession certificate, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.