Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 733 (GAU)

Union of India v. Nayan Das

2017-06-05

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. Mrs. Uma Chakraborty and Mrs. M Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. M. Rahman and Ms. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is filed against the order dated 3.2.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, whereby it has allowed respondent's OA No. 114/2015 directing the petitioners to immediately consider his case for compassionate appointment. 2. Facts in short are these. One Bihu Ram Das was an employee in the Indian Railways and died-in-harness. He left behind his widow, one unmarried daughter and two sons, namely, Basanta Das and Nayan Das (respondent). At that time, Basanta Das was married. He also has a minor daughter-Jayashree Das, who is presently aged about 10 years. On the death of Bihu Ram Das, the petitioners gave compassionate appointment to Basanta Das to mitigate the financial crisis. Unfortunately, even Basanta Das expired on 15.6.2014. And before his death, his marriage with wife - Kalpana Baishya had been dissolved vide order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati and thereafter, she also remarried to another person on 7.10.2013. Their daughter Jayashree Das is in the care and custody of her maternal grand-parents. 3. Under such circumstances, the respondent, being younger brother of Basanta Das, approached the petitioners for his compassionate appointment, but to no avail. He, therefore, filed OA No. 114/2015 before the Tribunal for a direction against the petitioners to appoint him on compassionate ground on the post, which fell vacant, due to death of his elder brother. 4. The petitioners opposed the claim of respondent by contending that he does not fall within the meaning of “near relatives” of deceased employee and that Jayashree Das, minor daughter of Basanta Das was also entitled for consideration for being appointed on compassionate ground as and when she attained majority. The petitioners further averred that the Railway authorities have a Circular dated 31.5.2011, wherein it is stipulated that the case for compassionate appointment can be considered until 25 years from the death of an employee and as such, the case of the minor daughter of Basanta Das may be considered in due course of time. 5. The petitioners further averred that the Railway authorities have a Circular dated 31.5.2011, wherein it is stipulated that the case for compassionate appointment can be considered until 25 years from the death of an employee and as such, the case of the minor daughter of Basanta Das may be considered in due course of time. 5. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with the petitioners and by the impugned order, directed them to consider the case of respondent for appointment on compassionate ground, keeping in view the spirit of the Scheme within 4 months. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the Central Administrative Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the elder brother Basanta Das of the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of their father Bihu Ram Das. The appointment was given to the elder son Basanta Das to mitigate the sufferings of the family consisting of widow of Bihu Ram Das, his unmarried daughter and two unemployed sons. But unfortunately, Basanta Das of the respondent also died-in-harness putting the entire family in utter distress once again. It is true that in the event of his death, his widow or his son or daughter would naturally be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. But in the given circumstances when his wife got divorced and remarried before his death, naturally, she would not be eligible for consideration. So far the case of his minor daughter is concerned, she is only 10 years of age at present and is in the custody of her grandparents. Although, there is a Circular of the petitioners, wherein the scope of eligibility for consideration on compassionate appointment remains alive till 25 years of death of an employee, it is very much uncertain as to whether the daughter would opt for such an appointment on her attaining majority and it is equally uncertain as to whether she would be appointed by the authorities at that point of time giving preference to her over her counterparts. The aim and object of appointment under compassionate ground is to mitigate the sufferings of a family which suddenly has been subjected to a jolt due to death of the sole bread earner of the family and, therefore, the Scheme itself provides for appointing the near relatives and dependents of the deceased immediately, without causing any undue delay, so that the family can be rescued from suffering in penury. In the instant case, the brother of the respondent was the sole bread earner of the family consisting of his old and ailing mother, unmarried sister and the respondent. The entire family was dependent on his earnings. His minor daughter is already being taken care of by her maternal grandparents and appointing the respondent on compassionate ground would no way affect her livelihood in a prejudicial manner. On the contrary, if the respondent is not considered for appointment, the entire family would suffer and would be put into utter hardship. Therefore, equity, justice and good conscience demands that the case of the respondent is liable to be considered for compassionate appointment as directed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.