Susamma Chandy vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner is the daughter of late Sri. Mathai Chandy, who died while serving as a Naik in the Madras Regiment in 1972. At that time, the petitioner was a minor. When she became major, she applied for employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme of the Union of India. The petitioner filed an application, complying with all the formalities thereof, which was accepted and the petitioner''s claim was registered in accordance with the Scheme for compassionate employment in accordance with the priority. That was done as early as on 26.8.1998 by Ext.P2. Since nothing happened for several years, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 14558/2001, in which by Ext.P3 judgment, the third respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner. Since nothing was done, a Contempt Case was filed namely, CCC No. 624/2002, in which by Ext.P4 statement, it was submitted that the name of the petitioner will be sponsored in future as and when priority vacancies suited to her age and qualifications are notified in the Ex-Servicemen Cell of DGET from Central Government establishments. But still nothing happened and therefore, the petitioner has filed this original petition in the year 2002 seeking the following relief:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st Respondent to provide employment assistance to the Petitioner forthwith.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the stand taken is that the same as in Ext.P4 statement filed earlier in the contempt case. It is stated therein that the number of vacancies to which appointments can be made under the Compassionate Employment Scheme is limited and priority also has to be followed. It is stated that the petitioner herself has lessened her chances of employment by opting only for States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the application form itself.

In answer to the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has given the options only because the application form wanted the petitioner to specify her preferences and the petitioner is prepared to work anywhere in India.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is sad that the dependant of a ''jawan'', who died in harness in 1972 is still not given an employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme held out by the Union of Indian even after 38 years. The petitioner''s claim for compassionate employment has been accepted as early as on 26.8.1998. Even thereafter 12 years have elapsed. I think that it is cruel for the respondents to ask the petitioner to wait still further for employment as the dependant of a deceased ''jawan''. I am of opinion that, that would also be a disrespect to the jawan, who served the country.

In the above circumstances, I dispose of this original petition with a direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner with an employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.