AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AM Bujor Barua, J
Heard Mr. G.Z Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the North East Frontier Railway and
Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
The petitioner No.1 is the younger sister and the petitioner No.2 is the father of late RajibChoudhury. The respondent No.4 is the wife of late Rajib
Choudhury. Late Rajib Choudhury died on 20.07.2011 and at the time of his death, he was working as a Senior Supervisor (subsequently redesignated
as Senior Section Engineer [P.Way]) in the respondent North East Frontier Railway. Prior to his death, he had married the respondent No.4 on
26.05.2011.
On 20.07.2011, an ejahar was lodged by the petitioner No.2 in the Bharalumukh Police Stationinter-alia stating that his deceased son late Rajib
Choudhury had awaked his second son Firoz from his sleep at about 5.00 a.m. and told him that his wife had earlier taken away his ATM card, bank
passbook, LIC policy and gold jewelries to her maternal home and that the night before at about 11.30 p.m. his father-in-law had called him to put his
signature in a document, which provided that his wife will not be allowed in future to come back and further had also threatened to kill the members of
his family. But, later on, when the second son of the petitioner No.2 did not find his elder brother in the bed, he went around searching and after
breaking open the door of the bathroom, had found that late Rajib Choudhury had committed suicide by hanging himself from a rope. As a result
Bharalumukh Police Station (UD) case No.11/2011 was registered.
On the same set of facts, another ejahar was lodged on 20.07.2011 before the BharalumukhPolice Station by the respondent No.4, inter-alia,
alleging that at about 12.00 a.m., the night before her husband late Rajib Choudhury had informed her over mobile phone that his younger brother Firoz
would sleep with him and that he was asked not to close the door of the bedroom from inside. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 alleged that there
exists a deep routed conspiracy and planning, resulting in the death of her husband. Consequently, Bharalumukh Police Station case No.246/2011 u/s
306 IPC was registered.
A petition u/s 200 Cr.P.C was also filed by the petitioner No.2 as regards the death of his sonlate Rajib Choudhury, which resulted in case
No.2006c/2011 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, wherein some more detailed facts were stated and the respondent No.4
along with her family members were made the accused. The said complaint petition ultimately resulted in Bharalumukh Police Station case
No.263/2011 being registered u/s 306 IPC on 29.07.2011. The Bharalumukh Police Station case No.263/2011 further resulted in the charge-sheet
No.116/2011 dated 30.09.2011 being filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. In the chargesheet so filed, the respondent
No.4 is the accused No.3, who has been put up for trial along with her father Md. Mohsin Ali, mother Musstt. Neckjan Bibi and her two brothers
Firoz Khan and Nekibur Rahman. In the charge-sheet, it was stated that late Rajib Choudhury was being pressurized by the respondent No.4 and
others since a few days after his marriage to live separately from his parents or otherwise, he would face dire consequence and that all the accused
persons used unparliamentary and filthy language to him, as a result late Rajib Choudhury lost his patience and committed suicide by writing a suicide
note, wherein the respondent No.4 and the other accused persons were held responsible.
Thereupon, by the order dated 17.12.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati hadfixed the given dates for appearance of the accused
persons and also expressed its satisfaction that there are prima-facie materials to proceed against the accused persons u/s 306 of the IPC. It is stated
that the trial in the aforesaid criminal case is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati.
In the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner No.2 made an application before the respondentNo.3 being the Divisional Railway Manager
(Personnel), NF Railway, requesting him not to act upon the nomination made by late Rajib Choudhury on 30.04.2011 i.e. prior to his marriage with the
respondent No.4, whereby the respondent No.4 was nominated as the nominee upon his death.
On the other hand, the respondent No.4 preferred an application before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (in short CAT), Guwahati, which was
registered as OA No.321/2012, inter-alia, seeking the relief for a direction to the respondent authorities in the NF Railway to consider her case for
compassionate appointment.
At the same time, the petitioner No.1 being the younger sister of late Rajib Choudhury, alsopreferred an application before the CAT, Guwahati,
which was registered as OA No.326/2012, interalia, seeking the relief that the respondents in the NF Railway be directed to consider her application
for compassionate appointment against any post, for which she may be qualified.
The OA No.321/2012 of the respondent No.4 resulted in the order dated 12.11.2012, wherein adirection was issued to the Senior Sectional
Engineer of NF Railway to give a consideration to her application for compassionate appointment. On the other hand, the OA No.326/2012 of the
petitioner No.1 resulted in the order dated 19.11.2012, wherein also the respondents in the NF Railway were directed to consider her application for
compassionate appointment. In the resultant situation, the petitioner No.1 also made a representation dated 22.11.2012 before the Divisional Railway
Manager (Personnel), requesting for a compassionate appointment by bringing on record the order dated 19.11.2012 of the learned CAT, Guwahati.
The representation of the petitioner No.1 seeking for a compassionate appointment was given a consideration and by the communication dated
26.12.2012 of the DPO/LMG, she was informed that during his lifetime, late Rajib Choudhury had submitted a nomination in favour of his wife i.e. the
respondent No.4 and that as per the master circular No.16 and RBE No.03/2009, only the son/daughter/widow/ widower of an employee are eligible
for compassionate appointment and since the respondent No.4 being the widow of late Rajib Choudhury had also applied for compassionate
appointment, therefore, she alone would be entitled. By further referring to Railway Board Letter RBE No.79/1996 dated 01.04.1996, RBE
No.66/1997 dated 02.05.1997 and RBE No.165/1999 dated 05.08.1999, it was informed that the other family members are entitled for compassionate
appointment only when the deceased is a bachelor and in the case of a married employee, the sister is not eligible for compassionate appointment.
The said communication dated 26.12.2012 was assailed in an application before the learnedCAT, Guwahati, resulting in OA No.16/2013. The OA
No.16/2013 was given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 22.01.2013, by which the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the NF Railway that there is no such provision for giving appointment to the sister of a deceased employee who was married, was accepted and
accordingly, it was held that the communication dated 26.12.2012 was rightly issued.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 in OA No.16/2013, thepresent writ petition has been preferred. In the writ
petition, the ground taken is that although the respondent No.4 may have been made the nominee by late Rajib Choudhury, but the fact that the
respondent No.4 is facing a trial for abetment of suicide of her deceased husband, disentitles her to receive any benefit that may accrue due to the
death of her husband. The petitioners also take the stand that the petitioner No.1 being the unmarried sister and the petitioner No.2 being the retired
father of late Rajib Choudhury, who was the sole bread winner in the family, it was incorrect on the part of the NF Railway authorities to arrive at a
conclusion that the petitioner No.1 was not a dependent of the deceased. A further stand has been taken that under the master circular No.16, the
petitioner No.1 being a near relative of the deceased late Rajib Choudhury, she is also entitled for an appointment on compassionate ground. An
additional ground is also taken by the petitioners by filing an affidavit that under the relevant clauses of the master circular No.16, a committee of
three senior scale officers, one of whom should be a personnel officer, is required to consider an application for compassionate appointment and
therefore, the communication dated 26.12.2012 is not sustainable as the same merely conveys the decision of an individual officer and not that of the
committee.
In the aforesaid premises, the question for determination before this Court in the present writpetition would be as to whether the petitioner No.1
being the unmarried dependent sister of late Rajib Choudhury, would be entitled for a compassionate appointment in terms of the master circular
No.16 and at the same time, as to whether the respondent No.4, who is facing trial for abetment of suicide of late Rajib Choudhury, would still
continue to be entitled for a compassionate appointment in terms of the master circular No.16.
Although no affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondent No.4, but the learnedcounsel appearing for the said respondent does not
express the desire to file any such affidavit and on the other hand submits that as the entitlement of the respective parties depend upon the
interpretation of the master circular No.16, therefore, appropriate submission on the same can be made without an affidavit. At the same time, it is
also taken note of that the respondent No.4 had filed the Misc Case No.1764/2013 for vacating the interim order dated 18.03.2013 and accordingly,
the said application for vacating the interim order is taken up as the affidavit in opposition of the respondent No.4.
For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the master circular No.16 as to whether theunmarried dependent sister of a married employee is
entitled to compassionate appointment and at the same time, as to whether the wife of the deceased married employee, who is charged with abetting
of suicide, resulting in his death would also be entitled for a compassionate appointment, the relevant provisions of the circular are as follows:-
       “I. Circumstances in which compassionate appointments may be made:
  Appointment on compassionate grounds relate to the appointments made of dependents of Railways servants who lose their lives in the course
of duty or die in harness otherwise while in service or are medically incapacitated/de-categorized. The circumstances in which appointments on
compassionate grounds may be made are as below:
i. When Railway servants lose their lives in the course of duty or get so crippled that they cannot do any work (this also in the course of duty, for
example, loco and traffic running staff in charge of trains involved in accidents), ii.     When Railway employees die in harness while in
service, before retirement. iii.    When an employee’s whereabouts are not known for a period of seven years and the settlement dues of
the employees are or are not paid to the family on this account. This limit of seven years may be relaxed to three years on the merits of each case
with the approval of the General Manager, subject to the condition that the services of ht person appointed on compassionate grounds would be
terminated in case the missing employees is traced subsequently………………………..â€
“III. Persons eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds:
  Son/ daughter/ widow/ widower of the employees are eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the circumstances in which such
appointments are permissible. Where the widow cannot take up employment and the sons/druthers are minor, the case may be kept pending till the
first son/daughter becomes a major i.e. attains the age of 18 years, subject to time limits as provided under Para (V)Â of the Circular. The benefit of
compassionate appointments may also be extended to aâ€near relative/adopted son/daughterâ€. The eligibility of a near relative/adopted son/daughter
to such appointments will be subject to the following conditions:
a.  Near relative:
i. Such appointment is not permissible where the railway employee who has died in harness has left behind only the widow, with no son/daughter to be
supported by her.
ii. The son or daughter of the employee or ex-employee is a minor one and the widow cannot take up employment.
iii. A clear certificate should be forthcoming from the widow that the “near relative†will act as the bread-winner of the family.
iv. If the family certifies at a later date that the “near relativeâ€, who was appointed on compassionate grounds, refuses to support the family, the
services of that employee are liable to be terminated.
v. Once a “near relative†is appointed on compassionate grounds, no further appointment shall be given alter to a son, or daughter or the widow of
the employee, on compassionate grounds.
vi. The appointment of the “near relative†shall not be considered, if a son or daughter, or the widow herself is already working and is earning.
A blood relation who is considered to be a bread-winner of the family can be considered as “near relative†for the purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds……………….â€
“VIII. Procedure to be followed before making compassionate appointments:
a.  The candidates applying for appointments on compassionate grounds should be subjected to suitability test by a committee of three Senior
Scale Officers one of whom should be a Personnel Officer. The suitability of those proposed to be appointed on compassionate grounds should be
properly assessed by a strict test. In case the candidate has the necessary minimum qualifications for employment in a Group ‘C’ post, his
suitability for all types of Group ‘C’ posts in the order of suitability, should be judged and recorded by the screening committee, which should
also clearly indicate the categories for which the candidate has not been considered suitable. Final offer of appointment will, however, be subject to
the availability of vacancies, passing of medical examination, production of necessary certificates etc…………..â€
  Whether an unmarried dependent sister of a married employee is entitled to compassionate appointment:-
The provisions of Clause-III of the master circular clearly provides that only theson/daughter/widow/widower of an employee are eligible for being
appointed on compassionate ground provided the other requirements are duly satisfied. Although the benefit of a compassionate appointment may also
be extended to a near relative, adopted son or daughter, but such entitlement is circumscribed to the extent that it would be impermissible to appoint a
near relative in the event where the railway employee, who had died in harness had left behind his widow. A further requirement is that a near relative
can be appointed only upon there being a clear certificate from the widow that the near relative will act as the bread winner of the family. In the
absence of the aforesaid two conditions of there being no widow being left behind by the deceased employee or that the widow had given a clear
certificate that the near relative will act as the bread winner for the widow, no such appointment on compassionate ground can be made in favour of a
near relative.
In the instant case, although the petitioner No.1 can be categorized as a near relative, but inthe facts of the case that late Rajib Choudhury had left
behind his widow being the respondent No.4 and there being no such clear certificate from the respondent No.4, certifying that the petitioner would be
the bread winner for the family, no appointment on compassionate ground can be made in favour of the petitioner No.1.
  Whether the respondent No.4, although is the widow of late Rajib Choudhury, can be appointed on compassionate basis in view of the fact that
she is facing trial as an accused on the charge of abetting the suicide of late Rajib Choudhury:-
Clause-I of the master circular No.16 inter-alia, provides that appointment on compassionateground can be made in favour of the dependent of
deceased railway employees, who may lose their lives in course of duty or die in harness otherwise, while in service, or are medically
incapacitated/decategorized. In the instant case, the claim of the respondent No.4 for compassionate appointment on the death of late Rajib
Choudhury is on the premise that the deceased employee had died in harness while in service. Ordinarily, in terms of Clause-I of master circular
No.16, the respondent No.4 would be eligible for a compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband had died in harness.
Although Clause-I of the master circular No.16 provides that “die in harness otherwise†wouldbe a reason for compassionate appointment, but
the expression ‘die in harness otherwise’ would have to mean that the concerned employee had died while in service because of any reason
that may be attributed for his death, be it a natural death or a death caused by any other reason. But, when we examine the situation of a death being
caused by any other reason, it would also have to be borne in mind that such other reason for the death being caused would necessarily have to
exclude a death that may be caused because of any covert or overt commission on the part of the claimant for compassionate appointment himself or
herself. The expression ‘die in harness’ naturally follows a connotation that the concerned person had died for any other reason other than a
reason, which may be attributed to the person making the claim for compassionate appointment. If the reverse is accepted that even an applicant for
compassionate appointment who himself or herself is responsible for causing the death, would also be entitled for such appointment, the same would
belie the very purpose for which the scheme for compassionate appointment is adopted by the authorities.
Compassionate appointment is provided for meeting the immediate financial hardship that themembers of a deceased employee may face, which
by itself is an indication that such death had befallen the deceased employee all of a sudden and without the family members being actually prepared
for it. But when such death is caused by the family member itself, the element of the death having befallen all of a sudden without the family members
being prepared for it would be absent and therefore, such death being caused by the family member would have to be excluded from the entitlement
under the scheme of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the expression ‘die in harness otherwise’ would have to be understood
contradistinction to the situation where the death of the employee itself has been caused by the family member, who makes the claim for the
compassionate appointment and in such case, where the death of the employee had been caused or is being attributed to the member of the family,
who makes the claim for compassionate appointment, such cases cannot be brought into the category of being a dependent of the railway employee,
who had died in harness otherwise. Accordingly, the question as to whether the respondent No.4, who is charged of abetting the suicide of late Rajib
Choudhury would be entitled for being considered for a compassionate appointment is answered against her.
In terms of the above, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstance of the presentcase, neither the petitioner No.1 is eligible for
compassionate appointment inasmuch as late Rajib Choudhury had left behind a surviving widow and nor the respondent No.4 being the surviving
widow would also be eligible for a compassionate appointment inasmuch as, she has been charged and is facing trial of abetment of his suicide.
  In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Â
Â