Gujarat High Court
Divya Ben D. Oza vs Divisional Controller, State Road ... on 13 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1989)2GLR967
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is a widow of the deceased employee of the respondent - S. T. Corporation who died while in service. The petitioner claims that one of her two sons who were minor at the time of death of her husband should be given appointment to a suitable post on compassionate ground. The petitioner's husband died on 26th May 1978. At that time, both of her sons were minor, having been born on 30th July 1962 and 24th November 1968.
2. The general Standing Order No. 659 of 1979 provides for such appointment to the adult dependent of the deceased employee who dies while in service. By another Standing Order No. 658 of 1979, it is provided that such appointment be given only within one year of the death of the employee and it is further clarified that these instructions were applicable to Class III and IV employees and it was stated that such benefit of compassionate appointment should be given only within one year from the date of death in case of minor dependents. On behalf of the respondents, thereof, it is contended that as the employee had died on 26th May 1978, such appointment on compassionate ground could be made only upto 26th May 1979 whereas the eldest son attained majority thereafter on 30th July 1980 and after that date, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given.
3. This policy has been revised by the Standing Order No. 683 of 1980 dated 15th February 1980 and it recites that the earlier policy was to give appointment within one year from the date of death of the employee. However, that policy was revised and it was provided that at the time of death of an employee of the Corporation, if the son or daughter has not attained the age of 18 years, such appointment could be given within five years of the date of death of the employee and subject to other conditions and provisions, such dependents could be taken in service in Class III or IV. It goes even further and provides that where the widow of the deceased employee is illiterate and the children are minor, the cases should be examined whether the benefit of compassionate appointment could be given even beyond the period of five years and such cases were required to be referred to the Central Office with detailed report for verification. Thus, it is clear that the Corporation is alive of the needs of the family of the deceased employee when it consists of minor dependents and it is with this benevolent purpose that it has extended the period to five years. The elder son attained the majority in 1980 whereas his father had died in 1978. Thus, within about two years and two months of the death of the employee, he has attained the majority and his case is covered by this Circular. The argument of the respondent-Corporation is that this Circular came into operation only in February 1980 and before that, earlier Circular was in existence which gave an opportunity upto one year only and therefore the rights of the petitioner and her elder son were governed by the earlier Circular and were closed under that earlier Circular. It is not possible to accept this argument. The policy underlying the Circular is to give relief to the widow and minor dependents of the deceased employee within five years of the date of death of the employee and even beyond that period. Having regard to that policy, it is very clear that the case of the petitioner's eldest son clearly falls within the Standing Order No. 683 dated 15th February 1980 and the Corporation was not justified in refusing to give appointment to the eldest son merely on the ground that he attained majority after one year of death of the employee.
4. In the result, the petition is allowed and rule is made absolute by directing the respondent authority to give suitable appointment on compassionate ground to the eldest son of the petitioner-Harshid within a period of one month from today.
5. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.