Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs P.P.Shainy

Devan Ramachandran, J

A learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the appellant herein – the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the Company hereinafter) – to appoint the respondent to an apposite post in their services under the Compassionate Appointment/ Dying-in-harness Scheme (The “Scheme” for short), more than 25 years after the death of her father, who was their employee.

The company assails the impugned judgment, principally contending that the direction to grant the afore appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent, more than 25 years after the death of her father, is illegal and contrary to the binding precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court.

We will first deal with the most necessary facts: According to the respondent, she is the adopted daughter of late Achuthan Nair, who was in the services of the company; and that, consequent to his unfortunate death in the year 2000, she was left without any succour, thus in deep financial crisis. She says that she, therefore, made an application for appointment under the ‘Scheme’ on 06.06.2001, but which was returned by the company, after having waited for over three years, for the reason that the same was not supported by an order or document showing that she had been legally adopted. She says that she, therefore, approached this Court through WP(C)No.12132 of 2004, to obtain Ext.P1 judgment, in which, the “Company” undertook that if she were to produce documents of legal adoption, her case would be considered for appointment under the “Scheme” prevalent at the time her father died.

The appellant submits that she, thereupon, produced a certificate from the village office to certify that she had been validly adopted; but that this was not accepted by the “Company”, thus forcing her to move the learned Munsiff Court, Perambra, through O.S.172 of 2016, to obtain Ext.P4 judgment, which validates the adoption. She says that, in spite of this, when she approached the “Company”, they asked her to produce a Succession Certificate, through Ext.P8; but which she was not able to obtain, though she had applied for it. The learned Munsiff Court, Perambra rejected her petition holding through Ext.P9 for the reason that such certificate could be issued only in relation to debt or securities to which the deceased was entitled. She points out, however, even without any reference to this, her claim has been rejected through Ext.P12 order merely saying that the “Scheme”, under which she had applied, was no longer in force and that under the new one, she is not eligible to be appointed; and that she was thus constrained to approach this Court, through the writ petition.

Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Millu Dandapani - appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued that the afore sequence of facts would establish that it was solely on account of the insouciance and insensitivity shown by the “Company”, that her client has been left in the position that she is in. She asserted that, when an application for appointment was made by her client as early as on 06.06.2001, it was imprudent and unconscionable for the “Company” to have kept it with them for nearly three and half years, to then return it on 23.12.2004, saying that she had not supported it with a legal order of adoption. She pointed out that the Company now takes the stand that the “Scheme” has changed and that under the new one, her client cannot be appointed; and hence that no Court could have granted approval to it. She contented that the findings and holdings in the impugned judgment are frequently irreproachable; thus impermissible and praying that this appeal be dismissed.

Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Latha Susan Cherian – learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, refuted the afore submissions saying that the respondent’s claim has been rejected, through Ext.P12, not solely because the ‘Scheme’ has been substituted by another; but also since she had not cared to produce the legal documents of adoption for a period of 10 years, after she had obtained Ext.P1 judgment. He showed us, reading from Ext.P1, that his client had undertaken before this Court that they will consider the respondent’s case under the old ‘Scheme’, if she was to produce the documents of adoption as warranted in law; but that she chose not to do so until 2016, when she moved the learned Munsiff’s Court, Perambra, to finally obtain Ext.P4 judgment only on 19.10.2016.

Sri.George Cherian then pointed out that the arguments of Smt.Sumathy Dandapani are not factually correct because, his client never has rejected the claim of the respondent singularly for the reason that the ‘Scheme’ has been altered; and that, this is manifest from Ext.P2 dated 02.05.2005 – which is the date after the old Scheme had been substituted – that her case would be considered under the said ‘Scheme’ itself, provided she produced valid documents. He asserted that, in response, the respondent only produced a certificate from a Village Office, which could never be legally accepted; and then did nothing for 10 years, till she approached the learned Munsiff in the year 2016. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. [2025 ICO 420], to press on his assertion that benevolence under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme can be offered only at the time when the applicant and/or his/her family goes through abject financial crisis on account of the unfortunate death of the sole breadwinner and until such time as such crisis continues. He concluded his submissions saying that, going by the conceded sequence of events, it is evident that, more than 25 years have now elapsed after Sri.Achuthan Nair unfortunately demised; and hence, the appointment of the appellant under the ‘Scheme’ has now become impossible.

We must say that there is great force in the submissions of Sri.George Cherian.

The respondent applied for appointment on 06.06.2001, soon after her father died. No doubt, the ‘Company’ kept her application pending till 23.12.2004, to be returned asking her to produce documents to show that she had been legally adopted by Sri.Achuthan Nair. She then approached this Court to obtain Ext.P1 judgment, followed by Ext.P2 letter of the appellant, both of which indicate that they were willing to accommodate her under the old ‘Scheme’, provided she produced the relevant documents.

It is at this stage that the controversy really has its genesis because, the respondent does not explain what she did thereafter for a period of 10 years, until she approached the learned Munsiff’s Court, Perambra, through O.S.No.172/2016, to obtain Ext.P4 judgment on 19.10.2016. Of course, her answer is that she had approached the ‘Company’ with a certificate from the Village Officer, to substantiate the factum of her adoption by Sri.Achuthan Nair; but which was admittedly not accepted by the latter.

The precedent relied upon by Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel, namely Ajithkumar (supra), declares the law leaving little doubt that, compassionate appointment can be offered only in ‘hand to mouth cases’ and where the applicant is below poverty line, struggling to pay basic expenses like food, rent, utilities etc. The Honourable Supreme Court has cautioned that this has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standards of life; and that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of right.

It is thus inescapable that any appointment under any Compassionate Scheme would be justified only to save the applicant and his/her family from imminent deracination on account of financial crisis and not otherwise.

Going by the facts in this case, it has been over 26 years since the father of the respondent died; and we are told at the Bar that she is married, though her husband does not have a steady source of income. The scenario certainly presents a situation where we cannot find the applicant or her family to be now in a perilous financial crisis, solely on account of the demise of her father; and in such perspective, the declarations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ajithkumar (supra) applies in all fours; thus incapacitating us from offering any relief to her.

The afore being said, the learned Single Bench has allowed the Writ Petition on the impression that it was the fault of the company in not considering and ordering the application of the respondent in time. But, as we have noticed supra, though there was an initial delay at the hands of the company in keeping the application of the respondent, made in the year 2001, pending till 23.12.2004, all further delay can only be attributable to the respondent herself because, even though she obtained Ext.P1 judgment from this Court – in which the company agreed to appoint her under the old ‘Scheme’ on her producing a legal document of her adoption – she chose to take the first step for it only in the year 2016, by approaching the learned Munsiff’s Court, Perambra.

The situation of the respondent may be less than satisfactory – as asserted by her; but this Court will be in a position to offer any succour only if she is entitled to it, as per law. When, going by the standards fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court, appointment of the respondent under the Compassionate Scheme at this stage becomes rather untenable, if not impermissible and therefore, we become enjoined to interfere.

In summation, we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.