Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1315 (JHR)

Ankit Tiwari v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd

2017-07-31

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
ORDER Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed in O.A/051/00064/2015, the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi has upheld the Office Order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure-9), impugned therein, whereby the claim for compassionate appointment by the applicant/writ petitioner herein, was rejected by the Respondents. 3. Father of the applicant was employed in Raw Material Division of SAIL. In the year 2008, he was diagnosed with certain grave ailment. The employee was referred for specialized treatment and he underwent kidney transplant in the year 2010. The Company provided him the best medical facilities and bore the expenditure also incurred for his treatment. As per the Circular No. RMD/K/Pers/F-14/11/597 dated 25.03.2011(Annexure-2), petitioner''s father applied for consideration of medical invalidation on 06.04.2012. He was advised to apply in prescribed format which he did on 11.05.2012. While application was under process, he expired on 17.05.2012. In terms of Clause-2.3 of the Circular dated 25.03.2011, the Respondent rejected the claim for compassionate appointment. Clause 2.3. is quoted here under: "2.3 The date for consideration under the Scheme will be the date on which the Committee declares an employee as ''medically invalid''. If an employee dies due to disease or otherwise before declaration of ''medical invalidation'' by the Committee then such death shall be considered as ''natural death'' and the dependant family members shall not be considered for compassionate employment but may avail benefits under employees'' Family Benefit Scheme." 4. The Pre-condition for being declared medically invalid was examination of the claim of the employee by a Medical Board. If the employee dies due to disease or otherwise before declaration of ''medical invalidation'' by the Committee, then such death shall be considered as natural death and the dependant family members shall not be considered for compassionate employment, but may avail the benefits under employees'' Family Benefits Scheme. It is not in dispute that ailment of the petitioner''s father i.e. chronic renal failure, was covered under this Circular. However, the Learned Tribunal also was persuaded by the terms of Clause 2.3 to uphold the impugned order of rejection dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as admittedly, the employee had died before his case case could be taken up by the Committee (Medical Board). 5. However, the Learned Tribunal also was persuaded by the terms of Clause 2.3 to uphold the impugned order of rejection dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as admittedly, the employee had died before his case case could be taken up by the Committee (Medical Board). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) in WPS No. 3874 of 2013 (Sangita Gupa and another v. The Steel Authority of India Limited and others) dated 28.04.2015 reported in [ 2015(2) JLJR 626 ]. The Respondent Steel Authority of India Limited was also Respondent in the said writ petition, though in respect of a different plant. The decision of the Learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Learned Division in L.P.A. No. 310 of 2015 vide judgment dated 16.02.2016 preferred by the aggrieved Steel Authority of India Limited. Both judgments are also enclosed as Annexures-11 and 11/A to the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the present case are even better in the sense that while the employee late Rajendra Prasad Gupta, husband of the petitioner Sangita Gupta had made an application on a plain paper on 01.12.2010, eight days before his death on 08.12.2010 while undergoing treatment at Vellore, father of the present petitioner did apply in the prescribed format on 11.05.2012, six days before his death on 17.05.2012. If for reasons beyond the control of the employee the Medical Board could not sit and examine his case for medical invalidation, the object behind the scheme cannot be defeated. 6. Counsel for the Respondents have filed a counter affidavit defending the impugned order and judgment passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Material facts are not in dispute. Respondents rely upon the specific language of the Circular dated 25.03.2011. Since the employee died before his case could be considered by the Medical Board, case of the petitioner could not be considered within the purview of Clause 2.3 of the Circular dated 25.03.2011. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, gone through the relevant materials on record, the impugned judgment and the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner. We may usefully reiterate the object behind laying down the scheme for compassionate appointment under the State or its instrumentalities. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, gone through the relevant materials on record, the impugned judgment and the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner. We may usefully reiterate the object behind laying down the scheme for compassionate appointment under the State or its instrumentalities. It is in the nature of social welfare measure. The principles underlying such scheme have been reiterated in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209. It is in the nature of exception to the mode of regular appointments. The purpose behind the scheme is to give succor and means of sustenance to the dependant of the employee who die in harness or on the ground of medical invalidation, as the present case is. Such socio-economic welfare legislation/policy is to be interpreted 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 a narrower interpretation tends to defeat the object and purpose of socio economic welfare measure, it is to be avoided. We are strengthened in adopting such an approach in view of the opinion rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 188. Keeping into mind these interpretive principles, if the interpretation of Clause-2.3 in question is made in a way which would ultimately render the scheme itself to futility, we may as well adopt a bolder construction based on the view that framers of the scheme would have framed it only for the purpose of bringing about the effective results. 8. There was nothing left on the part of the employee to be done in the facts of the present case in terms of the Circular dated 25.03.2011. The time taken in constitution of the Medical Board, his examination could not be held to his detriment in such circumstances. However, Respondents seem to have followed blindly the letter of the circular while overlooking the spirit of the social-economic welfare legislation/policy once. The facts of the present case are broadly similar to the case of Sangita Gupta (Supra) in WPS No. 3874 of 2013. However, Respondents seem to have followed blindly the letter of the circular while overlooking the spirit of the social-economic welfare legislation/policy once. The facts of the present case are broadly similar to the case of Sangita Gupta (Supra) in WPS No. 3874 of 2013. In the said case, the claim for compassionate appointment on the death of the employee Rajendra Prasad Gupta was rejected only on the ground that he did not make an application in the prescribed form from his death bed at Vellore before he died on 08.12.2010, though application was made on a plain paper. In the said case also, as is obvious, the Medical Board could not be constituted to examine him before his death. Therefore, facts of the present case stand on the same footing, so far as constitution of the Medical Board for examination of the employee is concerned. 9. We are informed that the dependant of late Rajendra Prasad Gupta namely, Rajiv Ranjan, his son, has been appointed after the Respondent unsuccessfully pursued the matter in appeal before the Learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 310 of 2015. There is no reason why the Respondents could not accord similar consideration to the case of the present petitioner also. We are therefore satisfied that interest of justice would suffer if the action of the Respondents is sustained. We therefore set aside the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the order at Annexure-9 dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Asst. General Manager (Personnel), Steel Authority of India Limited, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, is quashed. We direct the Respondents to examine the case of the employee on the basis of the relevant records relating to medical treatment. If his case comes within the purview of the Circular dated 25.03.2011, the case for compassionate appointment should not be refused only on the ground that the Medical Board could not sit to examine his claim before his death. Respondents should conclude this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall also supply all the relevant documents along with his detailed representation together with a certified copy of the instant order before the Respondent authorities. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.