Urmila Kanwar vs AVVN Ltd.

Instant appeal is directed against the order of ld. Single Judge dt. 22.8.2012. However, the appellant is seeking compassionate appointment not on account of death of her father, however, the fact is that her father was in service of the respondent died while in service and brother of the present appellant Bhupendra Singh was given compassionate appointment on the post of Helper Grade-II vide order dt. 2.5.2008 but unfortunately he too died due to electrical accident on 22.8.2009.

The respondent Board in its 145th meeting held on 15.12.2010 made certain amendment and the definition of dependent govt. servant was notified vide order dt. 31.12.2010 and it was stipulated that if the first dependent who was appointed on compassionate basis died within five years of appointment due to electrical accident while performing duties, the second dependent may be considered for appointment, if the first dependent died due to electrical accident was unmarried or if married had no dependent.

The appellant, as alleged, in the affidavit claiming herself to be second dependent of the deceased who happens to be her father and died while in service.

It is alleged by the appellant that the application was submitted on 23.9.2009 in the office of the Executing Engineer at Jhunjhunu, however, the prescribed application form filled by the appellant & placed on record indicates that the application form was submitted by her on 20.9.2011 and indisputably the appellant got married prior thereto in February, 2010 and accordingly the application came to be rejected by the authorities vide order dt. 24.7.2012 on the premise that the appellant cannot be considered to be dependent of the deceased being a married daughter.

Main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant even before the ld. Single Judge was that the application was submitted by her after death of her brother on 23.9.2009 and she got married in February 2010. Thus, fact of her matrimonial status after submission of application form would not deprive her in seeking compassionate appointment and she deserves to be considered as one of the dependent member of the deceased family for compassionate appointment and rejection of her application by the respondent authority vide order dt. 24.7.2012 on the premise that being sister of the dependent is not eligible to seek compassionate appointment, is not legally sustainable.

Counsel submits that the finding which has been recorded by the ld. Single Judge in holding that she could not be considered to be a dependent member of the family of the deceased and denial of compassionate appointment is not in conformity of Scheme of Rules, 1996 and so also the definition of dependent which has been modified by the respondent authority vide its order dt. 31.12.2010 is to be looked into on the date when the application, was originally furnished and change of matrimonial status at later date may not be relevant for the purpose for examining her eligibility for compassionate appointment and thus the ld. Single Judge failed to consider in the right perspective her claim for compassionate appointment under the Scheme of Rules which was prevalent at the relevant time when the application was furnished by her.

The submission has been considered by the ld. Single Judge at length and we too find no justification in the submission made and is also bereft of merit for the reason that from the material which has come on record, the claim of the appellant of submission of application dt. 23.9.2009 cannot be taken at its face value for the reason that the application is always to be furnished in the prescribed form and indisputably was filled by herself on 20.9.2011 and prior thereto she got married in February, 2010 and either in terms of Rules 1996 or as per notification dt. 31.12.2010 being a married daughter of the deceased employee cannot be considered to be dependent member of the deceased family and this what the ld. Single Judge also considered while rejecting the contention advanced by counsel for appellant under order impugned.

We have also considered the submissions made and do not find any error which may require interference of this Court.

Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.