AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 27.10.2004 in and by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the application has been made after a lapse of 16 years from the date of the death of the petitioner''s father.
It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working as an Assistant Divisional Manager in the respondent Company in its Branch Office at Trichy without any blemish and to the satisfaction of his superiors. While so, suddenly, due to ill health, his father died on 23.01.1985 leaving behind him his wife, two daughters and the petitioner who was then aged about 12 years. According to him, after his father''s death, his family was suffering without any income and hence his mother made a request to the first respondent through the respondent-Company at Trichy on 4.3.1985 representing that her family has been suffering a lot financially, after the death of her husband and all her children were minors and were not employed and there was no source of income for the family. She also requested for a job on compassionate ground for her elder daughter Ms. Rajathi, who had passed SSLC and was aged about 17 years.
The further case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the above representation dated 4.3.1985, the Divisional Manager of the respondent Company by letter dated 8.3.1985 asked for copies of the death certificate, medical certificate and legal heir certificate in order to pursue the matter further. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner''s family sent all the documents required by the respondent-company. However, there was no communication from the respondent-company. Hence, the petitioner''s elder sister made an application in the month of May 1989 to the second respondent herein stating that she had passed her graduation and she was then aged about 17 years and further stating that she had already made an application on 4.3.1985 through her mother and requested that her application may be considered and necessary orders may be passed. According to him, even after that, there was no reply from either of the respondent.
The petitioner further submits that thereafter when he attained the age of majority in the month of January 1997, he made an application to the second respondent-company stating that he was then aged about 19 years and was doing B.B.A. (second year) in National College, Trichy and requested to consider his application for appointment on compassionate ground. Even thereafter, there was no response from either of the respondents. Hence again on 16.2.2001, the petitioner made a further request to the second respondent that none of his family members were employed and were suffering financially and since the Family Pension Scheme was announced only on 1.1.1986, they were also not able to receive the family pension and hence requested for suitable appointment on compassionate ground. Even thereafter, the respondents had not considered the petitioner''s application and again on 26.7.2001 and 13.8.2001, the petitioner gave further representations and also sent the declarations of his two sisters stating that they would forego all claims for employment on compassionate grounds in the respondent-Company.
The petitioner further submits that in spite of his several representations, the respondent-company had not taken any steps and finally, the petitioner''s mother had also sent a representation to the respondents requesting that her son may be given an appointment on compassionate ground and her family is starving. However, the second respondent by letter dated 27.10.2004 rejected the petitioner''s request stating that as per rules, the application for employment on compassionate grounds can be considered only if the request is received within a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. Against the said rejection order, this writ petition has been filed.
The second respondent has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the letter dated 27.10.2004 was issued after appropriate consideration of the rules governing such request for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also submitted that the following rules reveal the important aspects for compassionate ground appointments, if any, for the General Insurance Corporation and any of its subsidiary companies:
a) There is no obligation to offer employment to the dependence of the employees who die while in service.
b) Only when any recruitment against sanctioned vacancies is being effected, applications may be considered from the dependants
c) One important requirement for the applicant either widow or other dependant is that he/she is not earning at the time of the employee''s death. The age also should be between the age of 18 & 45 for widow and 18 to 30 for children.
d) It is also to be noted that the application for employment from dependants has to be received within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee.
The counter further states that the investigation disclosed that when the employee namely R. Durairajan died on 18.1.1985, his widow was employed as Accounts Officer in the Treasury. She had continued in that employment and retired on 30.9.1994. The decent employment of the widow makes her ineligible from being considered. Consequently the children also do not have any claim.
In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner had given his petition in January 1997 and submitted yet another petition on 16.2.2001. Since the employee died on 18.1.1985, there is a delay of more than 14 years.
Heard Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.V. Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner and immediately after the death of his father, his family submitted a representation on 1985 and the same was not considered. She also contended that in the impugned order, except delay, no other reason has been cited.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner''s mother was in employment, therefore, their case was not considered by the respondent-company.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material records.
It is seen that immediately after the death of the petitioner''s father, his mother made a representation on 4.3.1985 requesting a job on compassionate ground for her elder daughter. Thereafter, when the petitioner attained the age of majority and in the month of January 1997, he made an application requesting to consider his application for appointment on compassionate ground. Again on 16.2.2001, 26.7.2001 and on 13.8.2001, the petitioner has made representations. Even after submitting several representations and sending details of death certificate, medical certificate and legal heir certificate, the respondent-company has not considered the case.
The object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family. It cannot be delayed unduly for one reason or the other and it must be looked into in a sympathetic manner. There are certain provisions giving relaxation and concession in the matter of compassionate appointment. Such concession has to be given in the matter of genuine claim for appointments on compassionate grounds. Hence, all the above factors and the background circumstances of the case may be taken into account while passing final orders.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence the same is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for passing appropriate orders taking into consideration the earlier representations of the petitioner''s family on 4.3.1985, January 1997, 16.2.2001, 26.7.2001 and 13.8.2001. Even if the petitioner''s mother was in employment, her date of retirement being 30.9.1994 shall also be taken into account for providing job to the petitioner, whose father died in harness. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceedings.
The writ petition is allowed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP. No. 1325 of 2005 is closed.