Gujarat High Court
Manguben Chandubhai Parmar vs General Manager -Hr- on 22 November, 2024
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3094 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
MANGUBEN CHANDUBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER -HR- & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 22/11/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) That the Hon'ble High Court please to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate relief, order or direction to release the Gratuity, Pension, Provident Fund and other retiral benefit with 9% rate of interest.
(B) Lordship be please to issue the order or direction to re-
considered the Annexure B i.e. application for compassionate appointment.
(C) Lordships be quashed and set aside annexure G. (D) Lordship be issued the order to delete the Para stated that Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined "Married wards not entitled compassionate appointment." from the Superannuation benefit fund scheme (Option R3). (E) For such other relief that may be deemed fit and proper.
(F) Cost of suit may be awarded."
2. Heard Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the respondents.
3. The present petition is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased - Shri Chandubhai Parmar, who expired on 04.10.2013, Employee No.58232, Designation : Instrument Master, while working at Gujarat Refinery under the respondents herein. The death certificate of the deceased - Shri Chandubhai Parmar is duly produced at Annexure - A. The deceased - Shri Chandubhai Parmar expired during the course of service and in view thereof, the petitioner No.2 applied for appointment on compassionate ground by preferring an application in December, 2013 duly produced at Annexure - B, page 13.
3.1 The respondent communicated with the petitioner No.1 herein by communication dated 31.10.2013 with respect to the exercise of option under the SABF Scheme; to select the option Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined either R1 or R3, duly produced at Annexure - C, page 14. The petitioner again made a communication on 11.11.2013 choosing the option R3, duly produced at Annexure - D, page
16. The option form dated 03.12.2013 is also produced at Annexure - E, page 17. The said option form is for pensionery benefits and other benefits.
3.2 The respondent by communication dated 12.12.2013 duly produced at Annexure - F, page 23, asked for the information and other documents. The respondent by impugned communication dated 26.12.2013, which is duly produced at Annexure - G, page 24, rejected the request of the petitioners wherein, upon scrutiny of the document, it is stated that the option R3 under the SABF Scheme is available to unmarried son/daughter only and the petitioner No.2 was married and in view thereof, the option R3 of the SABF Scheme was not extended to the petitioner. The aforesaid communication has given rise to the filing of the present petition with the reliefs, as referred above.
4. Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner No.2 herein is entitled to the option R3 of the SABF Scheme. Placing reliance Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined on the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on 05.09.2016 which includes the 'Married Son'. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the respondents herein being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 05.09.2016 and in view thereof, the petitioner No.2 herein is entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds under the SABF Scheme. Reliance is placed on the said Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2016 duly produced at page 187. Reliance is also placed on the RTI information procured by the petitioners wherein, in the said information, it is provided that some of the persons are extended the benefit of the Scheme. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the respondent authority has discriminated the petitioner by granting compassionate appointment to identically placed persons whereas, the petitioner No.2 is not extended the benefit of the same.
4.1 Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate placed reliance on the ratio laid down in case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in 2009(5) SCC 65, in case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur reported Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined in AIR 2019 SC 3338 and Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022 in case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. etc. reported in AIR online 2023 SC 174 : AIR 2023 SC (CIV) 1074 (Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022) . Placing reliance on the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is submitted that the petitioner No.2 herein be granted appointment on compassionate ground having availed the option R3 under the SABF Scheme.
5. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the further affidavit filed by the respondents dated 27.03.2024 and submitted that the petitioner herein is governed by the Superannuation Benefit Scheme, which is formed through the Superannuation Benefit Fund Trust under the Indian Trust Act and which is introduced by the respondent - Corporation w.e.f. 01.11.1987 as a welfare measure for providing social security which covers officers and non officer employees of the Corporation. It is submitted that the SABF Scheme is not a statutory scheme formulated under any Act or legislation enacted by the Government. It is also not pursuant to any instruction, order or policy of the Government. The scheme is a voluntary and contributory scheme of the Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined respondent corporation having arrived at a settlement between the management of the IOCL and the recognized Unions in the year 1987 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 26.12.1987. Reliance is placed on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which is duly produced at page 199 as also, the option under the said Scheme at page 206-207 wherein, option 1, option 2 and option 3 are duly provided.
5.1 In the course of hearing, Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the option 2 stands deleted. It is submitted that under the SABF Scheme, in case of death or permanent total disablement of an employee while in service, the female spouse (or male spouse, as the case may be) can opt for recurring or one time superannuation benefit and pension i.e. R1 or alternative choose option R3, which is an employment option for a prima facie eligible and dependent 'unmarried' son/daughter. It is submitted that the option available under the aforesaid Scheme is specifically qua 'unmarried' son/daughter at the time of death of the employee and as also, at the time of submission of application/offering employment under option R3. It is submitted that the issue Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined involved in the present petition is that the petitioner herein has exercised option R3 inspite of the fact that the petitioner No.2 is married and the option R3 is not available for married sons/daughters. It is submitted that the aforesaid Resolution of the Trust came to be accepted by the management. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the prayers, as prayed for in the present petition, are such that the same may not be granted.
5.2 Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the option R3 which was extended in favour of some other persons is duly explained in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the further affidavit filed by the respondents. Placing reliance on the said paragraphs, it is explained by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel that the persons listed at serial Nos.2 to 4 were unmarried at the time when they were granted compassionate appointment under the scheme. For, the names listed at serial Nos.1 and 5 to 7, their case for compassionate appointment was taken up and processed prior to the clarification of 10.07.2007 and the deceased employee - Shri Chandubhai Parmar, expired on 04.10.2013 in view thereof, the case of the petitioner has to be considered taking into consideration the Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined date of death of the employee and the date of application seeking compassionate appointment.
5.3 Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in case of Sunita Bhadooria vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2005 SCC Online All 1285: (2006) 1 ALL LJ 887 , paragraph 32. Reliance is also placed on the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in case of Durgapur Project Ltd. vs. Kumari Purnima Bhui, reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal 3136 : (2013) 2 CHN 576 paragraph 33, as also, in case of Smt. Putul Rabidas vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 1551 : (2016) 3 Cal LT 217.
5.4 Reliance is also placed on the ratio laid down by the Kerala High Court in case of Reni K. Abraja, & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 1998 SCC Online Ker 217 : (1999) 1 KLJ 152, and other decisions wherein, in identical issue, it is held that the married sons/daughters do not fall within the purview of the scheme and therefore, they are not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that, it is not a vested right and the Courts cannot Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined rewrite the policy of the compassionate appointment and to dictate the employer as to whom they should provide employment in form of concession/policy. It is submitted that any classification of dependent to the aforesaid extent also cannot be held to be arbitrary.
5.5 While concluding the submissions, Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, candidly submitted that if the petitioners were to choose the option R1 under the SABF Scheme, the respondent authority as on today also, is ready and willing to consider the case of the petitioner No.2 for the benefits that accrue under option R1 of the said Scheme. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submission, it is submitted that the petitioner herein has not cooperated to the communications issued by the respondent - authority from time to time for choosing the option R1 and in view thereof, the prayers, in the present petition, are such that the same may not be granted.
6. Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed.
Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined Analysis: -
7. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.2's father expired on 04.10.2013 while in service with the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 applied for appointment on compassionate ground for petitioner No.2 be preferring application in December 2013, which came to be declined by the respondent authority. It is apposite to refer to the communication dated 26.12.2013 duly produced at Annexure - G to the petition, which reads thus:
Ref.P/58212 26.12.13
To,
Smt. Manguben C. Parmar
C-9, Surya Nagar Society
Undera,
Vadodara
Sub: Request for Employment
This is w.r.t to your letter dated 11.11.2013 regarding your request for employment of your son Dhurabhai Chandubhai Parmar on compassionate grounds due to the demise of Shri Chandubhai Parmar, SEA, Emp. No.58212 of Gujarat Refinery.
The documents submitted by you pertaining to your son Dhurabhai Chandubhai Parmar regarding Age Proof, Qualification and Marital Status were scrutinized for consideration for eligibility for suitable employment.
However, we regret to inform you that as per extant rules, under SABF R3 option, employment can be sought for eligible Unmarried son/daughter only. Therefore, the candidature of your son Dhurabhai Chandubhai Parmar cannot be considered as he is married. It is therefore advised that you may contact the undersigned to change Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined the option under the SABF rehabilitation scheme and complete the necessary formalities at the earliest.
Sd/-
(Ciny Mathew Philip) DM(ER)
8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is governed by the SABF Scheme introduced by the respondent - authority which is duly produced at page 43, Annexure - R5. Upon perusal of the further affidavit filed by the respondents dated 27.03.2024 duly produced at page 187, it emerges that the said scheme is not a statutory scheme. The said scheme is introduced pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the management of IOCL and the workers Union in the year 1987 by Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which came into effect from 26.12.1987.
8.1 It is apposite to refer to the option R1, R2 and R3 of the SABF Scheme for Rehabilitation of the Family of the Employee Dying or Suffering Permanent Total Disablement while in service duly produced at page 43, Annexure - R5, which read thus:
Annexure - 1 (Clause 25.5.3) SCHEME FOR REHABILITATION OF THE FAMILY OF THE EMPLOYEE Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined DYING OR SUFFERING PERMANENT TOTAL DISABLEMENT WHILE IN SERVICE In case of death or permanent total disablement of an employee while in service. the female spouse for male spouse, as the case may be) may opt, within 6 months of the death of the employee, for any one of the following three option (designated R-1, R-2 and R-3) for the rehabilitation of the family. Option once exercised shall be final and no change thereafter shall be permissible. However, where the female. spouse has opted for R-3 benefit and is not able to avail of the opportunity because of the death of the nominated ward, change of option from R-3 to R-I may be permitted.
R-1 From the first of the month following the death of the employee, a monthly recurring superannuation benefit calculated as of 32 years' service, irrespective of actual length of service at the time of the demise of the employee, which is 40% of last salary shall be payable for a guaranteed 15 years or life-time of the spouse, whichever is longer If the spouse also expires earlier than 15 years, then the benefit will be extended to the nominee who will continue to get the same till the completion of a total period of 15 years. For this purpose, the spouse will also give the name of the nominee to the LIC.
R-2 (i) From the Ist of the month following the death of the employee, full salary (BP+DA) last drawn by the employee till the notional date on which the employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation will be paid by the Corporation to the eligible spouse (and in the event of spouse's death, to dependent nominee(s), if any) provided the nominees deposit:
a) the full PF accumulation (excluding VPF plus interest thereon);
b) the gratuity payment;
c) the amounts received towards leave encashment; and
d) by way of Group Insurance Scheme (under PF Scheme)
No interest shall be payable on the above deposits in addition to the commitment towards payment of last salary. The above amounts held in deposit shall revert to the nominees on the date on which the deceased employee would have reached the age of superannuation.
II) Thereafter, from the notional date of superannuation of the deceased employee, the spouse would be entitled to superannuation benefit under the SBF Scheme, which shall, if otherwise accruing under the SBF Scheme based on the actual years of service, be payable for a guaranteed period of 15 years or time-time of the spouse, whichever is longer.
R-3 For employment of otherwise eligible, suitable and dependent Unmarried son/ daughter (which shall also include son/daughter legally adopted prior to the death of the employee), the following provisions shall apply:
a) Employment of eligible son/daughter must be sought within 6 months of the death or permanent disablement of the employee, and be sought in the prescribed format (Annexure 4). Employment under Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined the scheme will be offered within a period of three years.
b) A dependent son/daughter on possessing the prescribed qualification and fulfilling the job specifications will be considered for employment provided there is a regular induction level vacancy of a type, within three years of the death/permanent disablement of the employee, for which a person of his/her age, background, qualifications attainments and physical fitness would have been otherwise considered.
c) The minimum qualification to be eligible under Option-3 of SABF shall be Matric + ITI in the related Trades or other higher induction level qualification as per existing policy.
d) In case the dependent ward does not possess the induction level qualification, as stated above, he/she shall be provided an opportunity to acquire such qualification by extending the existing normal waiting period of three years to a maximum limit of seven years, based on merit of each case to be approved by Divisional Hqrs.
e) During the waiting period and while the dependent child is studying to acquire induction level qualification, the family of the deceased employee may be allowed to retain a suitable Corporation Quarter in the Township at normal rent, subject to availability of quarter in the township.
f) A son/daughter who is the candidate for employment must also meet the prescribed medical fitness and other standards for employment. A women candidate shall be considered only against such a vacant post for which she would have been ordinarily considered and/or for employment against which there is no statutory prohibition.
g) After the expiry of three/seven years as the case may be, the claim for employment will lapse.
h) In the event the family of the deceased employee does not opt for employment of eligible dependent under Option-3 or the dependent does not acquire the requisite induction level qualification within the permissible, waiting period, the Corporation shall extend an amount equivalent to 60 (Sixty) months Basic Pay plus DA as Rehabilitation Grant in lieu of employment to mitigate the hardship of the deceased employee family.
i) The spouse in addition (from the date of the death of the employee) shall be entitled to the benefit, if any, otherwise accruing, under the SBF Scheme based on the actual years of service for a guaranteed period of 15 years or her life-time, whichever is longer."
9. This Court has also perused the Minutes of the Meeting of Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined the Board of Trustees which was held on 06.12.2006, duly produced at page 249 wherein, Clause 3 - Follow up actions of the Minutes of Meeting held on 25.06.2005 at Mumbai, reads thus:
"3. Follow up actions of the Minutes of 32nd Meeting held 25th June, 2005 at Mumbai
i) Employment to dependent children The Trustees were informed that Management has introduced an alternate option to Option R-3 i.e. grant of an amount equivalent to 60 (Sixty) months Basic Pay plus DA as rehabilitation grant in lieu of employment. Further, the minimum qualification to be eligible under Option - 3 shall be Matric + ITI in the related trade or other higher Induction level qualification as per existing policy and the waiting period to acquire such qualification has been extended to a maximum limit of seven years.
It was also deliberated regarding employment to married unemployed son of deceased or permanent total disabled employee under rehabilitation scheme annexed to SBF Scheme. It was informed that married sons/daughters are not dependent under any scheme of Corporation."
10. The aforesaid Scheme of the said Meeting came to be accepted by the respondent management on 10.07.2007, page 254, Annexure - A4, which reads thus:
File Ref. No. P/P/217 (CR No.31/2007) Date 10.07.2007 Sub: Scheme for rehabilitation of the family of the employee dying or suffering permanent total disablement while in service, annexed to SBF Scheme Under the above scheme, in case of death or permanent total disablement of an employee while in service, the female spouse (or male spouse as the case may be) may opt, within six months of the death of the employee, for any one of the three options (designated R-Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined 1, R-2 and R-3) for the rehabilitation of the family.
While under Option R-1 and R-2, monthly superannuation benefit / salary last drawn by the employee subject to stipulations is payable to the spouse, Option R-3 provides for employment of eligible "dependent" son/daughter.
in this regard, it is clarified that a married son / daughter is not a "dependent" and hence is not eligible for employment under Option R 3. This may please be brought to the notice of all concerned.
Sd-
(A.K. CHOWDHURY) DGM(HR)
11. Upon perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2016 upon which reliance is placed by Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, which is duly produced at page 187, it emerges that the said clarification came to be issued on 05.09.2016 is addressed to various departments of the Central Government, which is not in dispute. This Court has also perused a communication dated 14.12.2016 duly produced at page 255, which is addressed to one Shri Prabendra Kumar wherein, it is clarified that the said Office Memorandum with respect to compassionate appointment is not applicable to the CPSEs. The respondent herein is also a CPSE.
12. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, it emerges that the SABF Scheme is floated by the respondents upon an Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined agreement (MOU) arrived at between the management of the IOCL and the Union under the ages of the Trust and cannot be said to be governed by the Office Memorandum of 05.09.2016. Even otherwise, the petitioner's father expired in the year 2013 and the petitioners herein would be governed by the terms of the scheme prevailent at that point of time. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid.
13. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.4539 of 2009 , dated 07.01.2022 wherein, in an identical matter, it was prayed to delete a paragraph stating that 'Dependent unmarried son/daughter following provisions shall apply' from the Superannuation benefit fund scheme. The said petition came to be rejected. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 11 read thus:
"7. In view of the above as such, for all essential purposes, married children of the deceased employees are not construed as eligible for seeking compassionate employment and by referring to this, a decision has been taken by majority of Trustees in the meeting which has been held and the Trustees have been made entitled to pass any Resolution for the purpose of taking any decision and in that context, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt has also pointed out page 130 clause 4.12 and after referring to this, lastly, learned Senior Counsel has referred to page 155 in which a decision has been taken in 33rd Meeting of the Board of Trustees held at New Delhi on 06.12.2006, this issue relates to compassionate appointment to unmarried son of the Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined deceased was deliberated out of other issues and it has been held and rectified that the married son or daughters are not dependent under any scheme of the Corporation. Clause 3 on page 156 is reproduced hereunder :-
"3. Follow up actions of the Minutes of 32nd Meeting held 25th June, 2005 at Mumbai
i) Employment to dependent children The Trustees were informed that Management has introduced an alternate option to Option R-3 i.e. grant of an amount equivalent to 60 (Sixty) months Basic Pay plus DA as rehabilitation grant in lieu of employment. Further, the minimum qualification to be eligible under Option - 3 shall be Matric + ITI in the related trade or other higher induction level qualification as per existing policy and the waiting period to acquire such qualification has been extended to a minimum limit of seven years.
It was deliberated regarding employment to married unemployed son of deceased or permanent total disable employee under rehabilitation scheme annexed to SBF Scheme. It was informed that married sons/daughters are not dependent under any scheme of Corporation."
8. Further referring to these relevant circumstances from the Scheme, an attention is also drawn from the affidavit-in-reply filed on 12.09.2019 and has submitted that after the receipt of the affidavit filed by son that he is not having any job and is dependent upon the income of the mother's family pension and having no regular income, the respondent - Corporation hired an investigating agency and upon discrete inquiry, it has been found that the son of petitioner no. 1, is not only married, but is also gainfully employed and a detailed report to that fact is also submitted on record which appears to have not been disputed. The said preliminary report reflecting on page 172 is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt and thereby has contended that a conscious false statement on oath is made before this Court for seeking such benefit of compassionate appointment and after referring to this, a contention is raised that the issue of compassionate appointment is not a statutory or vested right and as such, no interference can be made by issuance of writ. This issue has been time and again examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the following decisions are referred to by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt by reiterating the submission to dismiss the petition.
(1)In the case of Sail & Anr. v. Awadhesh Singh & Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 621.
(2)In the case of Sudhirbhai Bhupatbhai Teraiya v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7268 of 2015.
(3)In the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr., v. V. Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined Somyashree reported in 2021 SCC Online 704.
9. In addition to this, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt has also drawn attention of this Court to the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of very Indian Oil Corporation which is reflecting on page 162 dated 03.03.2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2499 of 2010 and after referring to this decision, a contention is reiterated that no case is made out to issue a writ of mandamus in respect of compassionate appointment and as such, has requested to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, the Court is called upon to examine the relief related to interest and the issue with respect to compassionate employment is requested to be dealt with. Considering the aforesaid situation, the Court has perused that the Memorandum of Settlement which has been signed by the Union representative as well as respondent - Corporation under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said terms of settlement have been deduced in writing in which it has been explicitly reflects that upon introduction of the Superannuation fund existing scheme in the Corporation of offering employment to dependent is no longer in operation as is visible from page 102. In addition to this, the submission of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt, that the married son or daughters are not entitled by not treating them to be dependent of the deceased. The decisions have been taken throughout and as such, the petitioner's son being married person is not entitled to benefit of compassionate employment and in addition thereto, upon discrete inquiry, which has been made, it has been found clearly that the son is gainfully employed and as such, the family cannot be said to be in hardship. As a result of this, in considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for issuance of writ of mandamus enforcing the respondent - Corporation a right of compassionate employment as canvassed by the petitioners. This issue relates to compassionate employment has been time and again examined by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, including the decision delivered by this Court and upon examination of the said proposition of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the observations contained in the aforesaid decisions which have been cited by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt are sufficient enough to dislodge the claim of the petitioners in respect of compassionate employment. The object of the compassionate employment is to give immediate relief to the family of the deceased and undisputedly, the death which has taken place is in the year 2007 and in the year 2021, after a lapse of this much period of time, it is not desirable to issue a writ for allowing the son of petitioner no. 1 to be employed on compassionate basis. In one of the decision delivered by the Apex Court, the following proposition is made, since the Court has considered, the relevant para 6 is reproduced hereunder:-
"6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that comes up for our consideration is whether under the Memorandum of Agreement it is permissible for a dependent of the deceased to claim an Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined appointment on compassionate ground even when no other dependent of the deceased is already in service. Be it stated that the Memorandum of Agreement in question is not a statutory scheme and therefore, would be unenforceable in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Memorandum of Agreement for appointment on compassionate ground had been evolved by the employer so that on the sudden death of an employee his dependents would not be on the roads as destitute and can maintain themselves if an appointment is given to any one of the dependents of the deceased. Such a scheme cannot at all be conceived if some other dependent of the deceased is already in service. The very purpose for which such scheme had been evolved would get frustrated if a claim on priority basis is made by a dependent of the deceased notwithstanding the fact that other dependent of the deceased is already in service. In this view of the matter we are unable to sustain the decision of the Patna High Court in the impugned judgments. It may be stated that a Bench of this Court has already taken a similar view in the case of S. Mohan v. Govt. of T.N. and Anr., MANU/SC/1554/1998 : (1999)ILLJ539SC with which we have our respectful concurrence."
10.1 In addition to the aforesaid proposition of law on compassionate appointment in the recent time, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., v. Amit Shrivas reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 has also dealt with the issue regarding compassionate appointment and has propounded the proposition which deserves consideration to decide the present controversy. The Court deems it proper to quote the relevant observations hereunder :-
"21. The moot point, thus, is that having been granted increments, could a person be said to have reached the status of a regular employee? In order to answer this question, we may note that while considering this aspect in the aforesaid judgment, it was specifically opined that even if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in the negative terms. We say so, not with the objective of giving a licence to the appellants to withdraw any of the benefits, which are already granted, and we make this unequivocally clear. However, we cannot at the same time make a conclusion that the status acquired is that of a regular employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service.
24. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassion appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr.4 We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, & 5 as under: 3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, qua what would be the Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined cut-off date for application of such scheme. 4. It is trite to emphasize, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that 4 (2020) 2 SCC 729 there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. 5. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment."
Yet in a recent decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlata reported in AIR 2021 SC 4984, has also dealt with the issue on compassionate appointment and paragraphs 9.1 and 10, since relevant, the Court deems it proper to quote the same hereunder :-
"9.1. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered decision of this court in case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in para 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:−
21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] .
The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SCC pp. 139−40, para 2) "2. .....As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non−manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.
26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case."
10. Thus as per the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
11. In view of the aforesaid issue and the proposition of law being examined, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out any case to claim for compassionate employment. As a result of this, the petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed."
13.1 It is also apposite to refer to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7268 of 2015, dated 12.01.2018. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision read thus:
"15. From the facts of the case, it is not necessary to enter into the contention raised by respondent Corporation that SABF Scheme, under which the petitioner claims benefits, is not an employment scheme and it cannot be construed as a scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground.
16. In light of facts of present case it is not necessary to deliberate the issue or grievance raised by the petitioner against the Corporation's decision that the petitioner cannot be treated or considered dependent because he is married.
17. However, it is pertinent to note that the relevant option i.e. Option R3 postulate and requires that the person seeking employment i.e. benefit under Option R3, must, atleast be "dependent".
17.1 The scheme, particularly option R3 provides, inter alia, that, otherwise eligible, suitable and dependent son/ daughter (which Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined shall also include son/ daughter, legally adopted prior to the death of the workman) will be eligible for employment. 17.2 Thus, the applicant - claimant under option R-3 of the scheme, must be "dependent" besides being "otherwise eligible". The said condition, according to the scheme, is sine qua non (to seek benefit under option R-3 of the scheme).
18. It is also prescribed under the said scheme/option R3 that the dependent son/daughter on possessing prescribed qualification and fulfilling the job specification will be considered for employment provided there is regular vacancy of induction level within 3 years of death. The said option prescribe other requirements as well. 18.1 Thus, the primary, basic and undisputed requirement under the Scheme, more particularly under Option R3 is that the appointment seeker (i.e. son or daughter), must be dependent on the deceased employee at the time of death of the concerned employee and at the time when he / she seek the appointment and it should be established that at relevant time he or she (i.e. appointment seeker) was dependent on the deceased employee.
19. The petitioner has raised issue as to whether a married son or daughter can be considered dependent or not and that the decision of the Corporation that a married son / daughter cannot be considered dependent.
20. However, what is pertinent is the fact that it is not the case even of the petitioner that a major son / daughter who is married and independent and is gainfully employed should also be considered "dependent on the deceased employee".
21. It is difficult, by any stretch of imagination, to even assume much less to hold that a son who is married and has his family (wife and two children) and has his independent source of income is gainfully engaged and has been in employment since about 9-10 years even before death of the concerned employee and who has been, since about 8 years before the death of employee maintaining his own separate family can be considered dependent.
21.1 In present case, the above mentioned facts, with regard to the status of the applicant are not in dispute. Actually, the said details have been declared by learned advocate for petitioner after taking specific instruction from the petitioner ( who is present in the Court)
22. In light of the said details, the petitioner cannot be considered dependent on the deceased employee, more particularly that he was dependent on the deceased employee at the time of employee's death and / or at the time when he submitted the application.
22.1 It is not in dispute that at the time when the petitioner Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined submitted the application and even as of now the petitioner is gainfully engaged and he has his own independent and separate source of income by means of which he maintains his separate family comprising wife and 2 children (11 years old). In light of above discussed facts and for foregoing reasons the petitioner cannot be considered / held dependent on the deceased employee - either at the time of his father's death or at the time when he submitted the application.
22.2 In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to enter into the issue as to whether the married son should be considered dependent or not.
23. In view of the peculiar and specific case of the petitioner which establish that even before the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was not financially or economically and monetarily dependent on the deceased employee and that therefore the petitioner cannot be considered eligible and entitled for benefit under the Scheme and/ or benefit under Option R3.
24. Another, and more important reason for denying the petitioner's claim and to hold that the petitioner's claim is unjustified and unsustainable as well as unreasonable is the fact that the petitioner has voluntarily and without protest or objection already received benefit under Option R1 and he has been continuously and regularly receiving benefits (sum of Rs.8932/-) per month under Option R1.
24.1 In that view of the matter the petitioner is not justified to claim another/ 2nd or additional benefit (under Option R3) under the Scheme. A person / applicant cannot claim and cannot be granted two benefits under two options of same scheme. Having received and accepted one benefit under one option the petitioner cannot claim and he cannot be granted 2nd benefit. Thus, this petition cannot be entertained and the relief prayed for cannot be granted.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and does not deserve to be entertained. Consequently, the petition is rejected." 13.2 Further, it is also apposite to refer to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.11172 of 2010 , dated 07.10.2010, which reads thus:
"1. The petitioners - widow and son of Shri Mohanbhai Parmar, a deceased employee of the respondent, who died on 27.06.2009, are before this Court being aggrieved by a communication dated Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined 25.06.2010, whereby the Corporation has conveyed that the benefits of R3 Option of the scheme cannot be extended to the petitioners.
1.1 The ground set out for not extending the benefits of R3 Option is that in answer to the disclosure of 'marital status' of petitioner No.1, it was disclosed by petitioner No.1 that he is a 'divorcee', whereas Option R3 is available only to unmarried son and/or daughter of the deceased employee. So far as extension of benefits of R3 Option are concerned, it is under the policy of the respondent Corporation.
2. The Court restrains itself from making any comment upon the said policy, but at the same time, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent Corporation shall give an opportunity to petitioner No.2 to exercise Option and select either of the two Options available to her being R1 and R2. The Court finds no reason why the Corporation shall not allow petitioner No.2 to make this choice at this juncture, after it is decided by the Corporation that the Corporation will not be able to extend the benefits of R3 Option.
3. This Court is of the opinion that legitimately, a person may think that once a son is not having surviving marriage as he has already divorced his wife, the benefits of R3 Option could be available, but if the Corporation has taken a view that the son, having once married, cannot be said to be unmarried and therefore, benefits of R3 Option cannot be granted, on humanitarian ground, it is required of the Corporation that it shall give an opportunity to petitioner No.2 to select either of the Options, i.e. R1 or R2.
4. With these observations, the petition is not entertained and the same is disposed of accordingly.
At the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, it is clarified that it will be open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy available to them in case the Corporation does not allow the petitioners to exercise either of the Options."
13.3 It is also apposite to refer to the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.2499 of 2010 , dated 03.03.2011, which reads thus:
"1. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been notified for final disposal by order dated 15.11.2010, which has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.10.2010 in Special Civil Application No.11172 of 2010, by which, the learned Single Judge has permitted the appellant No.1 to exercise option R-1 and R-2, but upheld the order of the respondent by which the option was refused by Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined appellant No.1 on the ground that the appellant No.1 is a married person. The appellant No.1 in this appeal has claimed that he had taken divorce from his wife by mutual consent and has executed memorandum of understanding. As per Hindu Marriage Act, a male or female cannot divorce each other without there being a divorce decree. Customary divorce has also not been proved. Even if memorandum of understanding was arrived at between the parties, that cannot be treated to be legal and valid divorce. Therefore, the appellant No.1 remained married to the woman with whom he had married. The policy says that employment will be available to dependent, unmarried son/ daughter. This pre-supposes that once a person is married, he ceases to have any right to exercise of option under R-3. The scheme does not say that a divorced son/daughter is eligible for employment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the grounds taken in support of the petition are not tenable. The learned Single Judge has permitted appellant No.1 to exercise option under R-1 or R-2 of the policy. We are of the opinion that a just view has been taken by the learned Single Judge.
3. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is dismissed summarily. Notice is discharged.
4. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Application and it is also dismissed."
14. Further, upon perusal of the explanation rendered by the respondent authority with respect to appointment of other persons on compassionate ground, it is apposite to refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the further affidavit filed by the respondent authority, which reads thus:
"21. With the said clarity, attention is now invited to the appointment dates of the persons named in the list as sought to be relied on by the Petitioners:-
Sr. Name Alleged Date of Appointment
No.
1 Shri Kamleshkumar Chandubhai Gohil 13.04.2006
2 Shri Bhaskarbhai Girishbhai Patel 13.04.2006
3 Shri Ashishkumar Bhikhabhai 13.04.2006
4 Shri Jigar D. Tripathi 09.01.2007
5 Shri Jagdishbhai D. Rathva No person by that
Page 26 of 31
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024
undefined
name. One person by
the name of Mr.
Jagdishbhai G. Rathwa
was granted
appointment on
07.08.2007
6 Shri Mukesh M. Parmar 19.11.2007
7 Shri Jitendra R. Vasava 07.08.2007
22. In any view of the matter, persons listed at sr.no.2 to 4 were unmarried at the time when they were given compassionate appointment under the scheme. For names listed at serial number 1 and 5 to 7, it is submitted that their case of compassionate appointment were taken up and processed prior to the classification of 10.07.2007. As against that, the case of Petitioner was taken after the clarification dated 10.07.2007.
15. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners herein is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts as stated on affidavit by the respondent authority. It emerges that the petitioner cannot be said to be discriminated in any manner by the respondent authority while not extending the benefit of option R3 of the SABF Scheme. In light of the aforesaid also, the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein is discriminated stands negated. The petitioner herein is governed by option R3 of the said scheme which provides that married son/daughter are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner No.2 herein is a married person and was not extended the benefit of the SABF Scheme under option R3.
Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined
16. Reliance as placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in 2009 (5) SCC 65, is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein, the appointment qua the other persons in the opinion of this Court, are in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time applicable to such persons. In the aforesaid decision on which the reliance is placed, in the said case wherein, ad-hoc appointments were made by some department of State which continued, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the initial appointments of the respondents in the said case were held to be illegal, the directions given by the High Court for their reinstatement with consequential benefits, cannot be approved by replying upon the so-called regularization of their services. 16.1 Reliance is also placed on AIR 2019 SC 3338 in case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur . The aforesaid ratio is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons. There has to be classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined for grant of any benefit.
16.2 Reliance placed on the decision rendered in case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. etc. reported in AIR online 2023 SC 174 : AIR 2023 SC (CIV) 1074 (Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022), wherein, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the delay on the part of the authorities to decide the claim for compassionate appointment would frustrate the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment. The aforesaid ratio is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein, the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds which was filed by the petitioner herein in the month of December, 2015 was decided by the respondents on 31.10.2013.
17. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, if the petitioners herein were to approach the respondent authority seeking the benefit of the SABF Scheme under option R1, the same be considered by the respondent authority in accordance with the prevailing rules and regulations.
18. In view of the aforesaid, considering the prayers as Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined prayed for by the petitioner as also, the ratio as referred above wherein, in an identical facts, it is well settled that the the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services for the family of those who have no means of livelihood, be provided appointments on compassionate ground to meet with the day-to-day needs. In Special Civil Application No.4539 of 2009 which was decided on 07.01.2022, in an identical facts, it was prayed to delete a paragraph stating that 'dependent unmarried son/daughter' following provisions shall apply from the superannuation benefits of Scheme which is the present Scheme wherein, the said prayer was declined placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said petition was dismissed. In view thereof, considering the order passed in Special Civil Application No.11172 of 2010 dated 07.10.2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No.2499 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011 wherein, the aforesaid issue was subject matter of consideration, the aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra.
19. No case is made out to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition stands disposed of in view of the statement Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3094/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2024 undefined made by Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Dec 09 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:08:42 IST 2024