Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 347 (JHR)

Steel Authority of India Limited v. Sangita Gupta

2016-02-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Not only the appellant-SAIL has not taken the pain to remove the defects as pointed out, even after 7/8 months of the main appeal, in June, 2015, a formal application for condonation of few days delay in filing the appeal has also not been moved in which regard the concerned official of the Branch has also not pointed out the said defect which depicts the casual approach of the concerned official. Registrar General to look into it and report on administrative side. 2. It needs to be mentioned here that when the instant appeal was not taken up for a considerable time, counsel for the respondents made a prayer for taking up the same stating that the appellant-SAIL has not implemented the order of the learned Writ Court within the stipulated period of eight weeks as indicated in the operative part of the order which is adversely affecting the respondents-writ petitioners. It is how we have taken the instant appeal on Board, which is at admission stage and now being heard with the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides. 3. Husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2, who was employed with the appellant-SAIL (for short “SAIL”), developed kidney problem for which he was referred to C.M.C Vellore and ultimately died in the year, 2010. The deceased employee sent a letter on a plain paper requesting SAIL to give appointment to his son on compassionate ground with a further request for accepting his resignation. The said application/request remained pending with SAIL for considerable period and ultimately rejected vide order dated 10.12.2014 on the ground that the application was made on a plain paper by the deceased employee without conforming to the prescribed procedure. The other ground taken was that in case the application had been received in the prescribed form, the same would have been processed and forwarded before the Medical Board on whose recommendation thereafter, case of compassionate appointment could be considered. It gave cause to the respondents-petitioners to knock at the door of the Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 3874 of 2013. It gave cause to the respondents-petitioners to knock at the door of the Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 3874 of 2013. The learned Writ Court after considering all the aspects ultimately allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order of rejection dated 10.12.2014 and remanded the matter to SAIL to give a fresh consideration to the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a period of 10 weeks. 4. It would be apt to reproduce Paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads: “7. It would not be out of place to observe that the scheme for compassionate appointment in the State or its instrumentalities like the respondents are in the nature of social welfare measure. Provisions of such scheme are to be considered as per the scheme itself, as has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments, one of which is also relied upon by the counsel for the respondents i.e. in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Versus Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209. The scheme for compassionate appointment is in the nature of exception to the mode of regular appointments to be construed strictly in terms of the scheme which however is to be confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. The purpose is obvious to give succor and means of sustenance to the dependent of the employee who die in harness or may be on the ground of medical invalidation, as the present case is. The object of the scheme is in the nature of socioeconomic welfare legislation/policy. Such socioeconomic welfare legislation/policy is to be interpreted in a manner of course within the confines of the scheme. If a broader interpretation of such a scheme/legislation advances the course of justice, then the same has to be followed, if narrower interpretation tends to defeat the object and purpose of socio economic welfare measure, it is to be avoided. This view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah versus Urmila Badshah Godse and another reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 188. This view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah versus Urmila Badshah Godse and another reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 188. It is held therein that the Court in such a case, must give effect to that construction which will be responsible for smooth functioning of the system for which the statute has been enacted and construction which would reduce the legislation to a futility, should be avoided. It has been further held that the Court's role is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose.” 5. We, after considering the entire matter, are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or law, therefore, refrain from interfering with the same. The net result is that the appeal on hand merits dismissal at the stage itself. Ordered accordingly. 6. Since consideration of the case of the respondents-petitioners has already been delayed considerably and the time indicated in the impugned order already elapsed, needful shall now be done within two weeks only from the date, copy of the order is conveyed to SAIL which shall primarily be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the SAIL only. However, counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners also volunteers to convey the order to the authority concerned. Ordered accordingly.