Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs State of M.P., & Ors.

The interesting conundrum in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner, brother of deceased employee, Durga Bai was entitled to get compassionate appointment as per the policy dated 22.01.2007.

The admitted facts between the parties are that Late Durga Bai, women Health Worker, died in harness on 04.09.2001. The present petitioner is brother of said employee. The petitioner submitted his candidature for grant of compassionate appointment. Petitioner has also provided the affidavits of parents of Late Durga Bai, wherein they have given consent for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis. In turn, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon by order dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure-P/4). The petitioner was served with a letter dated 23.10.2007, wherein it was directed to remain present in relation to a departmental inquiry pertaining to his compassionate appointment. The petitioner''s salary was also withheld. The petitioner filed representation alongwith judgment passed in Case No.16/2001, delivered by Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur (Annexure-P/10). The respondents did not accept the said

representation of the petitioner and terminated his services by order dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure-P/11).

The singular reason for terminating the services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was brother of a married Government Servant and as per the policy he was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on Clause 2.3 of the policy.

Mr. N.K. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to interim order passed by this Court on 04.07.2008, the petitioner is still working on compassionate basis. He is taking care of the entire family. In addition, he is taking care of minor daughter of deceased Smt. Durga Bai. Thus, his appointment fulfills the objects and purpose of compassionate appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is prayed, that the word "unmarried" should be interpreted with a view to include a widow who has severed all relationships (social and financial) from her matrimonial house.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned order on the basis of reasons mentioned therein. He laid emphasis on Clause 2.3 of the policy dated 22.01.2007.

No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apposite to quote the relevant clause, which reads as under:

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

This is trite law that the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. The very concept of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the bread winner of the family. [See: 2009 (6) SCC 481, ( Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P .) and 1996 (8) SCC 23, ( Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar )]

Clause 2.3 of the scheme, no doubt ,provides that the brother or unmarried sister of unmarried deceased Government Servant alone is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointement based on the recommendation of parents of deceased employee. In the present case, the parents of deceased employee have give recommendations in favour of the petitioner. This is also not in dispute that the petitioner is taking care of old parents and minor daughter of deceased Government Servant/sister. Thus, the pivotal question to be decided is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it will be justifiable to upheld the impugned order and snatch the employment of the petitioner.

The purpose behind insertion of Clause 2.3 is that on the death of unmarried daughter, appointment may be given to the brother so that he can take care of parents. In the present case, it is pointed out that the sister of petitioner was a widow and had severed her relations with her matrimonial house. She was the only bread winner in the family. In this peculiar factual back drop, the interpretation advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be a plausible interpretation which will advance the cause of justice.

12.This is trite law that in matters of welfare legislation/provision, the provision should be liberally construed in favour of weak [See: 1985 (4) SCC 325, ( Workmen of Messrs Binny Ltd. vs. Managment of Binny Ltd. & another ) and 1998 (2) SCC 663, ( Indian Bank vs. K. Usha & another )].The Apex Court in 1987 (1) SCC 424, [ RBI vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd .], opined that interpretation must depend on the text and context ...... Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. Adopting the principles of literal construction of the state alone, in all circumstances without examining the context and scheme of the statute, may not subserve the purpose of the statue. In the

words of V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., such an approach would be "to see the skin and miss the soul". Whereas, "The judicial Key to construction is the composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision." ( Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee reported in 1977 (2) SCC 256.).

In the celebreated book,''''Principles of statutory interpretation'''' by Justice G.P. Singh (12th Edition), the Hon''ble Author has quoted that JUDGE LEARNED HAND tells us that JUSTICE CORDOZO, said "A judge must thing of himself as an artist, who although must know the handbooks, should never trust to them for his guidance, in the end, he must rely upon his almost instinctive sense of where the line lay between the word and purpose which lay behind it" (Page No.34, 52 Harvard Law Review, pp. 361-63).

In the light of aforesaid analysis, in my view, it will cause more harm than good, if impugned order is upheld. It will expose the entire family to starvation which cannot be the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, in the peculiar factual back drop of this case, I deem it proper to accept the interpretation advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to treat the present petitioner as eligible being the brother of a widowed daughter who severved her social and financial relationships from her matrimonial house. In the result, the impugned order dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure-P/11) is set aside. It is made clear that this order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case shll not be treated as a precedent in future. Petition is allowed. No cost.