Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 589 (ALL)

Simmi Kumari v. Union of India

2025-04-05

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Ajay Bhanot, J.) 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 3 and Shri Anoop Tiwari, learned Central Counsel for the respondent No.1-Union of India. 2. By the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 the claim of the petitioner No.1 has been declined. The order dated 18.10.2024 is cryptic and does not disclose any reasons for invalidating the claim of the petitioner No.1 for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 3. By the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 the application of the petitioner No.1 for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the footing that the son of the petitioner No.2 was gainfully employed in a bank. 4. The petitioner No.1 is the daughter and the petitioner No.2 is the wife of the deceased-employee respectively who died in harness on 19.05.2024. The petitioner No.2 submitted an application for appointment of her daughter (petitioner No.1) on compassionate grounds. An affidavit submitted by the petitioner No.2 in support of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds asserted that her son was working in the Punjab National Bank. According to the said affidavit, after his appointment the son had severed all connections with the family and was staying separately. The petitioner No.2 is dependant on her daughter (petitioner No.1). Both were dependants of the deceased employee. 5. The relevant rules governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds are extracted hereunder: " 21. RELAXATION IN FAVOUR OF NEAR RELATIVES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES WHILE IN SERVICE OR RETIRES AT LEAST 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUPERANNUATION: (iii) The relaxations shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family - spouse, son or unmarried daughter - is gainfully employed. However, if the widow is already employed elsewhere in Private Sector she will be allowed to take up a job in the Corporation in Class III or Class IV Cadre commensurate with her qualifications if she opts for the same (Circular No. MPP&R Desk/ZD/3/2001 dated 29/12/2001). Further provided that the condition regarding gainful employment, shall not be applicable where it is established by documentary evidence that the death of the employee is caused by his/her employment. Provided further that this provision is meant only to recognize the act of courage and bravery displayed by such an employee." 6. Further provided that the condition regarding gainful employment, shall not be applicable where it is established by documentary evidence that the death of the employee is caused by his/her employment. Provided further that this provision is meant only to recognize the act of courage and bravery displayed by such an employee." 6. The rules for appointment on compassionate ground have to be interpreted in a manner that they achieve the aforesaid legislature as stated above. 7. The appointments on compassionate ground passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. The sole justification to make compassionate ground appointments is that the dependants of the deceased employee face unforeseen financial destitution after the death of the latter and need urgent succour. Compassionate appointments are provided to the family to immediately tide over the sudden financial crisis so caused by the death of the employee. This feature alone constituted the kin of a deceased employee into one class and on this sole footing the rationale of compassionate ground appointments was justified by Constitutional Courts. 8. In this wake determination of the financial condition or financial crisis being faced by the family as a result of the death of the employee is thus a mandatory pre condition for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. The scope of the aforesaid Rules has to be interpreted in light of the above said holdings of constitutional courts and in the facts of this case. Under the said Rules the authorities has to examine as to whether the son of the deceased who is gainfully employed is maintaining the dependants of the deceased or not. If the member of the family who is gainfully employed has no connection with the dependants of the deceased or does not cater to their needs or fails to maintain them, the said employment shall not influence the decision for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. Any contrary interpretation will defeat the purpose of grant of compassionate grounds appointment. These material aspects have been overlooked in the impugned order dated 06.12.2024. 10. As seen earlier the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 is devoid of any reasons. 11. The impugned orders dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 neglect to consider the aforesaid germane aspects while invalidating the claim of the petitioners. The impugned orders dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are vitiated on account of non application of mind to relevant consideration. 12. 10. As seen earlier the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 is devoid of any reasons. 11. The impugned orders dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 neglect to consider the aforesaid germane aspects while invalidating the claim of the petitioners. The impugned orders dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are vitiated on account of non application of mind to relevant consideration. 12. In this wake, the impugned letters dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are quashed. 13. The matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities who shall decide the claim of the petitioner after considering all relevant factors including the financial condition of the family of the deceased in light of above observations and as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.