Miss. Rekha Kumari and Another vs Managing Director, A.P. Scheduled Castes Co-operative Finance Corporation and Another

S.C. Pratap, C.J.—One R. Kamala was employed as an Attender in the first respondent-Corporation. While in such employment, she expired on 24th October. 1989 in harness leaving behind none else except the first appellant, sister of the deceased and the second appellant, mother of the deceased. Both these appellants made an application to the first respondent-Corporation bringing the above facts to its attention and requesting that either of the appellants may be employed without the medium of the Employment Exchange because there was no other earning member in the family. The Corporation rejected the said application on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 1005, dated 27th December, 1974 covers the case of only a son or daughter or spouse of a deceased servant and since neither of the appellants fail in that category, the Corporation could not grant the application. Challenging this order .the appellants filed writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the same but with an observation that G.O.Rt. No. 1909, dated 8th December, 1984 had been brought to his notice where under similar circumstances the Government had granted relaxation and further observed that the appellants, if so advised, may approach the Government for relaxation. Instead of approaching the Government, the present appeal is filed.

Hearing Counsel on either side, we find that G.O.Ms. No. 1005, dated 27th December, 1974 docs not in terms govern the case of the appellants herein or either of them because neither of the appellants is either a son or a daughter or a spouse of the deceased R. Kamala, who died in harness while working with the first respondent.. But, this is a fit case where the Government should relax this condition. This is because admittedly the deceased was an unmarried when she died in harness while working as an Attender with the first respondent-Corporation. There was, therefore, no question of the deceased leaving behind a son, daughter or spouse. The deceased left behind only the appellants herein, appellant No. 1 being the sister of the. deceased and appellant No. 2 being the mother. The object of the G.O. in question is to provide a relief equitable in nature in accordance with fair play and justice to the family of an employee who dies in harness. The G.O. could not have contemplated all kinds of situations arising qua an employee dying in harness. The spirit behind the said G.O. obviously is to come to the aid of the family of the deceased and see to it that at least one person in the family gets the benefit of the said G.O. consequent upon the death of the sole earning member of that family. There is no dispute here that the deceased an unmarried woman was the sole earning member of the family and which family consisted of only herself, her other unmarried sister and her widowed mother. There is also no dispute before us that at the time of the death of the deceased, her sister-first appellant herein was less than 34 years of age. The possible circumstance that the first appellant may have crossed the maximum age after the death of her deceased elder sister, should not conic in the way of the first appellant claiming the relief in question.

Besides, G.O.Ms. No. 1005, dated 27th December, 1974 is based upon instructions issued by the Government of India, which instructions are reproduced in the G.O. itself. Under the said instructions the Government of India has observed that appointments should be made without reference to the Employment Exchange, of a son daughter near relative of a Government servant, who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. The Central Government instructions, therefore, included a ''near relative''. If that very phraseology had been used in the State Government G.O.Ms. No. 1005, the technical difficulty here experienced would not have been there. The spirit of the instructions of the Central Government is to see that equitable relief is granted in the case of the sole earning member of the family dying in harness leaving behind no other earning member.

Then again, our attention was invited G.O. Rt. No. 1909, dated 8th December, 1984 where one Dilip Kumar younger brother of the deceased, who died in harness, was given the advantage of employment by relaxing the condition of he not being either the son, or the daughter or the spouse of his deceased brother In a given case, therefore, where interests of justice justify, the State Government has granted relaxation. If such relaxation could be granted in the case of ''the said'' Dilip Kumar by virtue of G.O.Rt. No. 1909, dated 8th December, 1984, then the present is, in our view, a far more deserving case for similar relaxation. Here is a case where out of two sisters and a widowed mother, one sister died in harness while working as an Attender with the first respondent-Corporation leaving behind her younger sister and her widowed mother. None of them is an earning member. They come from a very poor family. One can well visualise the ''stark'' level ''if poverty'' to which they must have been reduced . consequent upon the only earning member of the family, namely, elder sister dying in harness. In all the circumstances, this is a fit case where we would strongly recommend to the State Government to relax the G.O. in question and grant relief in favour of the first appellant, younger sister of the deceased. The appellants'' learned counsel states that application accordingly will be made to the State Government expeditiously. In the interests of justice we direct that the State Government should consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application within six weeks of ''filing'' thereof.

We may make a passing observation that the case exemplified by G.O. Rt. No. 1909 and the present case do point out to a need for the State Government to re-consider its G.O. Ms. No. 1005 and consider if it could not be brought in accord with the Central Government instructions by adding the words "near relative" so that genuine cases such as the one here do not suffer and genuine sufferers are not compelled to move the Courts for appropriate directions.

Needless to say that if the Government does not accept the recommendation, it would of course be open to the appellants to move this Court by an independent writ petition.

Order accordingly on this appeal, which is thus disposed of with no order as to costs.