Madras High Court
Mrs.Sajitha Behum vs The Chairman on 10 February, 2020
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
W.A.No.3990/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2020
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.3990 of 2019 CMP No.22161 of 2019
Mrs.Sajitha Behum .. Appellant
vs
1. The Chairman,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,
(A Government of India Enterprise),
4th floor, Belapur Bhavan,
Plot No.6, Sector – 11,
Belapur CBD, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
2. The Senior Manager (HR),
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Madras Atomic Power Station,
Kalpakkam, Kalpakkam District,
Tamil Nadu-603 102.
... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order passed in W.P.No.6883 of 2009 dated 19.08.2011.
Page 1 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.3990/2019
For Appellant : Ms.N. Valliammal for
M/s M. Christopher
For Respondent : Mr.V. Vijaya Shankar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) This is an appeal where the claim is of compassionate appointment that has been denied by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2011. There are certain facts which are undisputed viz., that the appellant's husband late A.Abdul Gaffoor was employed with the respondents at Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, that he died while in service on 09.09.1997 and that on his death, the appellant received all terminal benefits and is also drawing family pension of Rs.4,270/-per month.
2. It is also undisputed that the appellant's son Mr.A.G.Abdul Rasheed is also employed as a Fireman in the same organisation. It appears that the same gentleman had also applied for compassionate Page 2 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019 appointment after the death of his father, but the claim came to be rejected on 03.03.1999 and a copy of the said order has been placed through a typed set of papers today. It appears that subsequently, he may have cleared the examination and has been appointed.
3. The appellant came up before this Court contending that she is entitled for an ex gratia payment of Rs.5,00,000/- under a Scheme which was promulgated in October 2006. A copy of the Scheme is on record. The appellant was informed that since her husband had died in the year 1997 and the Scheme has been made effective in the year 2006, with retrospective effect from 01.01.2001, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefits as a dependent of her husband. The order dated 13.03.2008, passed by the second respondent, is extracted hereinunder:-
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED (A Government of India Enterprise) MADRAS ATOMIC POWER STATION No.NPCIL/MAPS/3(9)/2008/HRM/3-173 Kalpakkam-603 102.
March 13, 2008.Page 3 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019 Smt.A. Sajitha Begum, W/o (late) Shri.A. Abdul Gafoor, No.35, 23rd Street, D.A.E.Township, Kalpakkam – 603 102.
Kancheepura (Dist.) Madam, This has reference to your letters dated 18.09.2007 and 25.01.2008 addressed to Chairman and Managing Director, NPCIL, Mumbai and Station Director, MAPS, Kalpakkam regarding appointment on Compassionate Appointment of Payment of ex-gratia of Rs.5.00 Lakhs.
In this connection,this is to inform you that NPCIL has introduced an alternate scheme for grant of payment of ex-gratia of Rs.5.00 Lakhs w.e.f.01.01.2001 to the families of NPCIL employees who die while in service in place of compassionate appointment.
Your request for ex-gratia has been examined. Since late Shri.A. Abdul Gafoor, DCO “C” died on 09.09.1997, he is not getting covered under the scheme.
We, therefore, regret our inability to consider your request.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (V.K. Potty) Sr.Manager (HR) Page 4 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there cannot be a denial of such payments and once the claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected, then, at least, ex-gratia payment should be accepted.
5. We have examined the entire scheme and we find that there is no discrimination nor any arbitrary act on the part of the respondents in denying the benefits of ex-gratia, inasmuch as the ex-gratia scheme was made effective from 01.01.2001. The husband of the appellant having died four years prior to that, will not entitle the appellant to claim any such ex-gratia payment. However, the Scheme itself provides for an exception, as is evident from clause 4.6 thereof, where, consideration of past cases can be made. The said clause provides that, if a person was entitled for compassionate appointment and in spite of having applied, he/she could not be appointed due to non-availability of a suitable vacancy, then, in that event, such a case can be reviewed for consideration of ex-gratia payment. We are re-producing clause 4.6 hereunder:-
Page 5 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019 “ 4.6 Consideration of Past Cases Grant of ex-gratia in accordance with the criteria and procedure prescribed in this HQI may also be considered in past cases of the following nature:-
(a) Where family members of employees who died while in service applied for compassionate appointment in NPCIL and where, the applications were scrutinized and grant of compassionate appointment was justified on the recommendations of the Committee meant to consider compassionate appointments under the NPCIL Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but where compassionate appointment could not be granted for want of suitable vacancies.
(b) Where the applications submitted by family members were not submitted to the Committee for want of vacancies and are kept pending for review.
All past cases of the nature referred to above require to be scrutinized afresh and Page 6 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019 recommendations furnished by the Committee mentioned in Para 4.3 above.
6. Applying the said Rule also, we find that this is not a case where compassionate appointment had been offered and due to non- availability of vacancy, the claim remained pending so as to treat it as subsisting in terms of clause 4.6 of the Scheme, inasmuch as employment had been offered in 1998 and was rejected in the year 1999 to the son of the appellant on account of his having not passed the written examination. Subsequently, it is evident and undisputed that the very same son has been employed as a Fire Man in the same organisation.
7. Therefore, it takes the appellant out of the purview of clause 4.6 of the scheme as aforesaid and consequently on both counts, that the husband of the appellant died in the year 1997 and the case was not covered under the clause of consideration of past cases, we find no reason to entertain this appeal. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, therefore, for these additional reasons, also does not call for any interference.
Page 7 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019
8. The writ appeal, therefore, is consigned to records. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.P., J.)
10.02.2020
Index : Yes
sr
To
1. The Chairman,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, (A Government of India Enterprise), 4th floor, Belapur Bhavan, Plot No.6, Sector – 11, Belapur CBD, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
2. The Senior Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, (A Government of India Enterprise) Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam, Kalpakkam District, Tamil Nadu-603 102.
Page 8 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.3990/2019 The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Subramonium Prasad, J.
sr W.A.No.3990 of 2019 10.02.2020 Page 9 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in