Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunita Mann vs Delhi Police Through on 10 September, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2594/2012 Reserved on: 29.07.2013 Pronounced on:10.09.2013 Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) Sunita Mann W/o late Sh. Manish Mann R/o 173, Chandan Singh Mann Wali Gali, Village Hamidpur, Delhi 36. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Manjeet Singh) Versus 1. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. P.K. Gupta) O R D E R
The only question to be decided in the instant case is that whether the daughter-in-law is a part of the family as defined in Clause 3 of the General Scheme of Standing Order No.39 of 2009 relating to compassionate appointment in Delhi Police.
2. The case of the applicant is that the deceased employee, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, died in harness on 06.04.2009. After his demise, the widow of the deceased recommended the case of her elder son Manish Mann, husband of the applicant, for compassionate appointment whereas the respondent no.2, vide its letter dated 19.06.2009, inadvertently recommended the name of the second son of the deceased namely Anil Kumar for appointment directing the DCP, 4th Bn., DAP, Delhi to conduct the physical measurement of Anil Kumar. This mistake was subsequently corrected by the communication under consideration. However, before a decision could be taken on this subject, Manish Mann, the husband of the applicant, also expired on 20.06.2010. It is the case of the applicant that since she is the only dependent member of the deceased employee who is eligible and responsible to feed other family members, had applied for compassionate appointment but the respondents rejected the application on the ground that the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee does not fall within the definition of dependent family members as per the Standing Order No. 39 of 2009. To rebut this plea of the respondents, the applicant has relied upon a decision in the matter of Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9177/2010 wherein the Honble High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 12.09.2011 held daughter-in-law as dependent of Government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee is not included in the definition of the dependent family members, the applicant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. The respondents have further challenged the applicability of the order dated 12.09.2011 of the Single Bench of the Honble High Court of Rajasthan as not being applicable to the facts of the instant case.
4. Coming to the issue under consideration, one has to start that while Article 141 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India secures the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the territory of India and all other courts are bound to follow the same. However, no such powers are available with the Honble High Courts as enunciated in the matter of Munir Syed Ibna Hussain versus State of Maharasthra and Others [1976 (3) SCC 548]. The order of the Division Bench of the Honble High Court constitutes a ruling of the territory of that High Court. The orders of the Honble Supreme Court are not only binding amongst the parties but they are the orders in rem. The orders of the Honble Division Bench of a High Court set up a binding legal precedent within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court but not across the country. It does not have the same force as the orders passed under Articles 141 & 142 by the Honble Supreme Court. Moreover, one finds that the facts are totally different in two cases. In Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), the deceased employee had died along with his son Rattan Lal (husband of the petitioner) and daughter Kumari Seeta in a road mishap and was survived by only female members i.e. the mother of the deceased (aged about 80 years); wife of deceased (aged about 53 years); and the petitioner (aged about 25 years). In the instant case, the deceased employee is survived by another major son. Further, the term dependent had been differently defined to include a spouse, son, unmarried and widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death. In the instant case, this definition as defined in respondents Standing Order 39 of 2009 is more restrictive and not as an eclectic. The Single Bench of Honble High Court of Rajasthan has observed as under:-
The facts stated above clearly indicate that a daughter-in-law is an important part of in-laws famly and she is required to take all care of household. The term daughter-in-law itself indicates that she is to be accepted as daughter by ion-laws. As such for all purposes the term daughter is wide enough to include daughter-in-law. The legal position that emerges from the entire discussion is that for the purpose of the Rules of 1996 the term widowed daughter included as widowed daughter-in-law, as such, she is a dependent as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules 1996. This inclusion serves the purpose of the Rules of 1996 and it is in consonance to the objects of the Rules. This inclusion is also not having any effect of amendment in the Rules. On the other hand, non-inclusion of widowed daughter-in-law in the ambit of dependents is having adverse effect on the purpose and objects f the statute concerned, as happening in present set of facts. However, in the instant case, the family has been clearly defined in Clause 3 of the Standing Order 39 of 2009 and none other can be included therein. The job of this Tribunal is to interpret the rules as they have been framed and it does not lie in its competence to make fresh rules or to interpret the rules in such a manner that their meaning is totally reversed. It has to be borne in mind that this Tribunal is not armed with powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, I am constrained to hold that the interpretation of the family has to be taken as provided in the Standing Order and the order of the Single Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Munir Syed Ibna Hussain versus State of Maharasthra and Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
5. With the above observations, present Original Application stands dismissed being devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) Member (A) /naresh/