AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Vinod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
The present original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:
“ i) To issue an order or direction for quashing the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the respondent No2.
ii) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant for any suitable post at any suitable place in Eastern Central Railway.
iii) To issue order or direction for setting aside master circular No. 16 issued by Indian Railways to the extent the para III which excludes a married daughter from employment as a family member under relevant dying in harness rules.
iv) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
v)To award cost to the applicant.”
The brief facts leading to this O.A. are that the father of the applicant died in harness on 09.05.2019. Accordingly, the applicant moved an application seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on 19.08.2020. The said application was considered by the respondents and got rejected by way of an order dated 01.12.2021 which is impugned at page 41 of the present original application. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
“ The employee had less than a year of service left. There is no liability of minor son or unmarried daughter. There is no justification for considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter which is to be considered only in rare and exceptional cases.”
Learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposing the O.A., submits that the case of the applicant has been duly considered by the respondents under the relevant rules and the applicant, being the married daughter of the deceased employee, is not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment as it is only in rare and exceptional cases that the compassionate appointment is allowed. Accordingly, the case of the applicant has been rejected after due consideration by the respondents under the established rules governing the subject matter.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
It is not denied that the applicant is the married daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. I feel that the case of the present original application is covered by the judgment dated 04.12.2015 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another in Writ C No. 60881 of 2015 which held:
“ In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression “family” in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
We, accordingly, strike down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.”
It is seen that the married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration of compassionate appointment. However, in the light of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, it is made clear that it is incumbent upon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her case to be considered for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant that the she shall submit her application for consideration of compassionate appointment annexing the documents to prove her dependency at the time of death of her father in 2019 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. The respondents shall consider the same as and when the meeting for consideration of cases for compassionate appointment is held in future and the outcome of the said meeting shall be communicated to the applicant within two weeks thereafter.
With the above directions, the instant Original Application No. 486 of 2022 is disposed of and the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 is quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.