Abhishek Nitin vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board ... on 18 December, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Abhishek Nitin vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board ... on 18 December, 2014

Petitioner is admittedly the son born out of Purnima Lata, the second wife of the deceased employee namely Late Alok Kumar Gupta. The private respondent no. 6, Tarun Kumar is admittedly the son born out of the first wife of the deceased employee, who is said to have died in 1979 itself, where after, second marriage of the deceased employee Late Alok Kumar Gupta was solmnized with Purnima Lata in the year 1982. The employee had died in harness on 4.5.2006 while working as typist in the Patratu Thermal Power Station(P.T.P.S.) under the respondent- J.S.E.B. The mother of the present petitioner i.e. Purnima Lata had earlier approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 5833 of 2006 with a claim for medical reimbursement of the deceased employee and for compassionate appointment of her son i.e. the present petitioner. The private respondent no. 6, Tarun Kumar intervened in the said writ petition and also made a claim for compassionate appointment. The Respondent- Electricity Board took a plea that no decision has been taken in respect of appointment of either of the son as both of them have failed to produce a ' no objection certificate' from either of them. Upon this, the writ petition was disposed of on 8.8.2011 vide Annexure-1 by directing the General Manager, P.T.P.S to take a decision in the matter of compassionate appointment as also in respect of the claim of medical reimbursement.

-2-

The impugned order, thereafter has been passed by the General Manager, P.T.P.S vide Annexure-7 dated 4.3.2013 bearing memo no. 355 which has held that as per the nomination form of the late employee, both the second wife and the respondent no.6 i.e son from the first wife are to receive equal amount of Provident Fund and Group Savings Scheme Fund. They have therefore been disbursed the aforesaid amount in equal proportion. The second wife Purnima Lata, however, has been drawing full pension along with D.A. and other admissible allowance. The claim of respondent no. 6 was contested by the said Purnima Lata on the ground that he is working in Alkem Laboratory, married and well settled. That was refuted by the respondent no.6. Considering the relevant factors, the General Manager, P.T.P.S. held that the respondent no.6 being elder in age as also the only son of the first wife is entitled to be given the first priority for compassionate appointment over the son born from the second wife i.e. the present petitioner. The General Manager also took into account the fact that the second wife, Purnima Lata is drawing family pension amount to Rs.10,665 + D.A. and other allowances and her earning condition is not so pitiable.

Rival submissions have been made by the parties. Petitioner has alleged by way of document brought on record through rejoinder that the respondent no. 6 was engaged in Alkem Laboratory and has been receiving salary as Depot Assistant cum Accountant since, February, 2000 till date. Therefore, he is not dependant of the deceased employee. Respondent no.6 in his affidavit has stated that at the time of the decision being taken by the General Manager, the said Purnima Lata had not furnished any supporting documents in support of the aforesaid allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family of the deceased employee from the second wife is in more pitiable condition and therefore , the son born out of -3- the legally wedded second wife, Purnima Lata should get the compassionate appointment. It is therefore submitted on his part that the order of rejection is bad in law. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the appointment letter issued by the respondents, the respondent no.6 is supposed to maintain the family of the deceased which he has failed to do so, which is breach of the condition of the employment.

Learned counsel for the respondent- Board has submitted that the General Manager, P.T.P.S upon weighing the rival consideration as adduced on behalf of the petitioner and his mother and the private respondent have come to a equitable decision to grant full pension to the second wife of the deceased petitioner while granting compassionate appointment to the respondent no.6, who admittedly is elder in age. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Raj Kishore Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (79) AIC 524, Patna. It is submitted that as per the said decision when rival claims of the son of the deceased employee from the first and second wife are to be considered, compassionate appointment is to be given in order of seniority i.e. elder brother and if his case is rejected, then only the case of the younger son is to be considered .

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record . From perusal of the impugned order it appears that both the parties were given opportunity to produce the materials through their representations before taking a final decision in the matter. The relevant material facts which were germane to take a decision have been considered by the General Manager, P.T.P.S. On the question of Provident Fund and Group Savings Scheme Fund, there is no dispute in view of the nomination made by the deceased employee that amounts under the two heads are to be apportioned in -4- equal proportion to the second wife, Purnima Lata and respondent no.6, Tarun Kumar. The second wife being the only surviving widow of the deceased employee was legally entitled to full pension which she has got along with other allowances. The contention of the mother of the petitioner, Purnima Lata that the respondent no.6 was working in a private firm was taken into account by the General Manager, P.T.P.S by holding that the respondent no.6 being the elder son was entitled to first priority in getting compassionate appointment. The matter was referred to the competent authority as per the Board's rule to take a decision in the matter, where after the respondent no.6 has been appointed on compassionate ground.

It appears that under the terms and conditions laid down in the order of appointment, the appointee has to maintain the family of the deceased. If he fails to do so, this would amount to misconduct on his part and his services would be terminated after issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, it appears that all these relevant material facts which were germane were given due consideration by the General Manager while taking the decision in the matter. Therefore, the decision of the General Manager does not appear to be suffering from error of law or facts which warrants interference in exercise of power of judicial review under writ jurisdiction by the Court.

If it is found that the respondent no.6 is not acting as per the terms and condition of the appointment letter, it would be open for the respondent- Board to take a decision in accordance with law after giving due show cause notice. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed. All the pending I.A.s are closed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court