Orissa High Court
Smt. Bhanumati Jena vs Union Of India & Others ..... Opp. ... on 27 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ORI 165
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ORISSA
AT CUTTACK
W.P.(Civil) No. 15200 OF 2007
Smt. Bhanumati Jena ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India & Others ..... Opp. parties
Advocate(s) who appeared in this case through Video Conferencing
mode:-
________________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. J.K. Khuntia & H.K. Rout
Advocates
For Opp. Party/Parties :
M/s. Subrat Mishra, S.Mohapatra,
& S. Samantaray, Advocates
_______________________________________________________________
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
27.08.2020 Per: Mohammad Rafiq, CJ.
This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 (Annexure-9) passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short "Tribunal") in O.A. No.1330/2004, in which the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of aforesaid original application assailing the order dated 29.07.2004 passed by the 2 Divisional Railway Manager (P), Khurda, which is filed at Annexure-7 by which the application submitted by Sri Anoo Jena for compassionate appointment was rejected.
2. Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Anoo Jena, who was working as Store Khalasi under the erstwhile South-East Railway, which is now East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, Khurda. He retired from service with effect from 29.04.1999 after being medically declared invalid vide order dated 16.04.2004. After retirement of Mr. Anoo Jena on the ground of medically unfit, an application was filed by said Anoo Jena seeking appointment to his son Kailash Chandra Jena under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. While the application was pending consideration, the husband of the petitioner, died due to road accident. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a legal heir certificate and after getting such certificate from the concerned Tahasildar, Mr. Anoo Jena submitted another application before the opposite party- Railways to consider name of the petitioner for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Learned counsel further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was due to be appointed on compassionate grounds, hence now the opposite party-Railways would be under obligation to give compassionate appointment to his widow under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
3. Mr. Subrat Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties- Railways opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 3
4. The opposite parties-Railways in their counter affidavit have admitted that Anoo Jena had submitted representation dated 16.04.2004 and 03.09.2004 under Annexures-6 and 8 respectively with request to the authorities to provide employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner after he was medially declared invalid and allowed to proceed on retirement with effect from 29.04.1999. Since he was issueless, he adopted Kailash Chandra Jena as his son, who met with an accident on 03.05.2002 and died. Therefore, Mr. Anoo Jena requested the Railway Authorities for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The Railway authority rejected the application on the ground that they do not have any provision to consider the employment assistance in favour of the petitioner, who is the daughter-in- law of Anoo Jena. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment rejecting the claim, has taken note of the fact as stated in the letter dated 27.07.2004 (Annexure-7), which reads as follows:
"Your representation for employment assistance on compassionate ground in favour of your daughter-in-law Smt. Bhanumati Jena, W/o. Kailash Chandra Jena, was examined. It is to inform that there is no provisions to consider employment assistance on compassionate ground in favour of your daughter in law."
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who was unable to point out any such provision or instruction of the Railways/the Railway Board for providing compassionate appointment to a daughter-in-law of an employee retired on medically invalidated ground. View taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the widow-daughter in law of the 4 original claimant would not be entitled to appointment under the rehabilitation ground, cannot be therefore faulted. If the husband of the petitioner would have survived, he would be entitled to compassionate appointment but not the petitioner, but that by itself cannot be a reason to justify demand of compassionate appointment.
6. Considering the circumstances stated above and under the writ jurisdiction, we see no reason to issue a direction to the opposite party- Railway Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased-claimant and the same would be contrary to law.
In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. There being no merit, the writ petition stands dismissed.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court's official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
................................. ..............................
(K.R.Mohapatra) (Mohammad Rafiq)
Judge Chief Justice
//S.K. Jena//P.A.