AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
a)For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for the quashing of the order passed by the respondent no. 2 vide his letter no. CMPFO-11.0011.0/17/2024-PERSONNEL/742/2507 dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure-5 to this writ application) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 rejected the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in CMPFO on the ground that she is not entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground because the petitioner being a daughter of the deceased employee, the petitioner was married at the time of death of her father and her husband was earning and as per the affidavit dated 31.12.2013 submitted by her mother (who is a kidney donor), her husband was earning and his two brothers were also in service, which is factually incorrect;
b)For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the respondents, since her father namely, Arjun Prasad has died in harness on 26.11.2013 while working on the post of Assistant, Region Dhanbad-II, CMPFO, Dhanbad and the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the earnings of her father during his lifetime and the petitioner has no independent source of income of her own to maintain and sustain herself and her old kidney donor mother who is also the widow of the deceased employee;
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father namely Arjun Prasad working on the post of Assistant, Region-II, CMPFO, Dhanbad had died in harness on 25.11.2013 leaving behind his wife namely Janti Devi, one daughter namely Kumari Kiran (the petitioner) and his two sons namely Satya Prakash Prasad and Ravi Kumar.
Pursuant to several representations by the petitioner before the respondents for the claim of compassionate appointment, the Regional Commissioner-II/Admn. vide letter dated 21.07.2017 informed the mother of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner got rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee.
Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1342 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of appointment of the petitioner, and the matter was disposed of with liberty to submit a fresh representation before the respondents. On non-compliance of the order, a contempt case was filed being Cont. Case (C) No. 882 of 2023 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 relying upon DoPT No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 30.05.2013. Hence, this writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother of the petitioner being an old-aged lady and kidney donor to her husband was not in a position to work in the CMPFO and had nominated her daughter for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband who could look after her as the petitioner even after her marriage was continuing to be dependent on her father due to meagre income of her husband and the respondents in the order dated 12.02.2024 has completely misinterpreted the statement of the petitioner in the affidavit by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her father as her husband was earning.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an application dated 02.01.2014 was received from the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of the petitioner; however, the competent authority considering the affidavits dated 31.12.2013 decided that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her father as she was already married at the time of death of her father and her husband is earning and her two brothers are also in service.
Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner had claimed for compassionate appointment in place of her father who worked as Assistant at Region-II, CMPFO, Dhanbad and died in harness on 25.11.2013 leaving behind the petitioner, his wife and two sons. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a married daughter and her two brothers were in service, so there was no immediate financial constraint being faced by the family requiring grant of compassionate appointment.
From record it appears that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was re-examined pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.07.2023 in light of Govt. of India DoP&t’s No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 30.05.2013. It further appears that vide Letter dated 12.02.2024, the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on two grounds, one being that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her father as she was already married at the time of death of her father and her husband is earning, and the second one being that her two brothers are also in service as per affidavit dated 31.12.2013 submitted by her mother.
However, on perusal of the affidavit dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure 6), this Court finds that the mother of the petitioner in her affidavit never stated that the husband of the petitioner was already working; rather, on perusal of the application dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure-4) by the mother of the petitioner for the claim of appointment on compassionate ground, it appears that the mother of the petitioner stated in her application at point no. 3 that the petitioner despite being married has been wholly dependent on the deceased employee who used to take care of her and her children when he was alive.
Thus, it appears that the averment in para 10 by the respondents in the Counter Affidavit dated 19.12.2024 that as per the affidavit dated 31.12.2013 the husband of petitioner was earning is based on the figment of imagination of the respondents.
The second ground for rejection of the claim for the compassionate appointment has been that the two brothers of the petitioner are in service; however, no document had been placed on record to suggest that they were in service. This Court vide order dated 11.06.2026 gave liberty to the respondents to make enquiry in that regard, and thereafter; pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2026 of Regional Commissioner-I (Admn.), a committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry regarding the service status and income of both brothers namely Satya Prakash and Ravi Kumar. However, the Committee could not retrieve details from the brothers apart from what has already been submitted by them in “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) to the CMPFO and the mother of the petitioner informed the Committee only to the extent that her elder son, Satya Prakash, has been serving in a university at Delhi since 2012 and her younger son Ravi Kumar is employed in a private company in Rajasthan.
The Committee was also informed that the petitioner and her mother are living together and both are surviving on little pension amount given by CMPFO as the financial capacity of her husband is meagre. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner’s brothers have refused to look after and maintain her mother and they are living an independent life along with their own family and till date, the petitioner is not employed anywhere and there is no one in her family to financially support the duo, i.e., the petitioner and her mother.
The respondents in order to reject the claim of compassionate appointment have resorted to the DoP&T’s Circular No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 30.05.2013 which stipulates twin requirements fulfilling which a ‘married daughter’ can be considered for compassionate appointment. The same is extracted hereinbelow: -
(i)That she was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds;
(ii)She must support other dependent members of the family.
From bare perusal of the clauses indicated hereinabove coupled with the facts and circumstances of this case, it can safely be inferred that the impugned order of rejection needs interference, inasmuch as, it is evident from record that the petitioner’s father was solely responsible to take care of his children when he was alive and right after his demise the onus shifted on the mother to take care of her and her children. Thus, the Court is of the view that, in no way, it should have been construed by the respondent that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her father. The petitioner and her mother have consistently iterated in their representations that the petitioner was wholly dependent on her father even after getting married as her husband had very little source of income.
As a matter of fact, the respondents have misinterpreted the fact that just because the husband of the petitioner was having little source of income would imply that the petitioner was not fully dependent on her father, inasmuch as, the marital status by itself cannot defeat a claim where dependency is established.
At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors. v. Harpal Singh & Ors.1 wherein it has been held that rules governing the compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override the welfare-oriented purpose of the scheme and justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities or procedural rigidities. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted herein-below:
“17.It can be safely concluded that a narrow or mechanical construction of the rules governing compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override the welfare-oriented purpose of the scheme. Where a procedural rigidity ceases to advance the humanitarian intent of the policy and instead operates as an obstacle to its effective implementation, such a procedure must be construed liberally to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of technicality. In this context, it is apposite to recall the sagacious observations of V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar [1975 (1) SCC 774]:
“Justice is the goal of jurisprudence – processual, as much as substantive. While this appeal has to be allowed, ………………, I must sound a pessimistic note that it is too puritanical for a legal system to sacrifice the end product of equity and good conscience at the altar of processual punctiliousness and it is not too radical to avert a breakdown of obvious justice by bending sharply, if need be, the prescriptions of procedure. The wages of procedural sin should never be the death of rights.””
Furthermore, insofar as the contention of the respondents, that the mother of the petitioner is getting the pension benefits and all other consequential benefits have already been given, is concerned; as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Limited2, it is well settled that the payment of pension or terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment on compassionate grounds to the bereaved family.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased father in view of the fact that the petitioner has been wholly dependent on the said government servant at the time of his death in harness, she has no independent source of income of her own to maintain and sustain herself and her old kidney donor mother who is also the widow of the deceased employee, and she is also ready to support her dependent mother.
Accordingly, the Impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide its letter no. CMPFO-11.0011.0 / 17 / 2024-PERSONNEL/742/2507 dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure-5 to this writ application) whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in CMPFO has been rejected, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
The concerned respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as per the prescribed rules and laws of the compassionate appointment applicable to the CMPFO within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.
As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.