Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Darshit B Chauhan vs M/O Railways on 5 September, 2019
OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AMHEDABAD BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O..A. Nos.421/2016, 395/2016, and 40/2018 with
M.A. No. 20/2018 in OA 40/2018.
Reserved on : 12.07.2019
Date of Order : .05.09.2019.
CORAM :
Hon'ble Sh. M.C.Verma, Member (Judicial)
I- Shri Darshit,
Son of Late Shri Bhagat Chauhan,
Age about 33 years,
Yet to be appointed in Railways,
Residing at Sarkari Godown,
Vishi Para, Wankaner. ... Applicant [O.A.No.421/2016]
[By Advocate : Shri M. S. Trivedi]
Versus
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager(E),
O/o. DRM, Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Rajkot Division, Rajkot - 360001.
3. Smt. Labuben,
Vishi Para, Goudan Road,
Wankaner, Dist. Rajkot - 363 621. ... Respondents
[By Advocate : Shri M J Patel (R 1 & 2)]
[By Advocate : Ms S S Chaturvedi (R-3)]
.......
II- Shri Darshit,
Son of Late Shri Bhagat Chauhan,
Age about 33 years,
Yet to be appointed in Railways,
Residing at Sarkari Godown,
Vishi Para, Wankaner- ...Applicant [O.A.No.395/2016]
[By Advocate : Shri M. S. Trivedi]
Versus
1.The General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2 The Divisional Railway Manager(E),
O/o. DRM, Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Rajkot Division, Rajkot - 360001.
1
OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018
3 Smt. Labuben,
Vishi Para, Goudan Raod,
Wankaner, Dist. Rajkot - 363 621. ... Respondents
[By Advocate : Shri M J Patel (R 1 & 2)]
[By Advocate : Ms S S Chaturvedi (R-3)]
.......
III- Smt. Labhuben,
W/o Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan,
Aged 54 years, R/o Vishipara, Wankaner,
Dist. Rajkot - 363 621. ...Applicant [OA No.40/2018 & MA]
[By Advocate : Ms S.S.Chaturvedi]
Versus
1.Union of India,
Notice to be served through
General Manager, Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2.Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Rajkot Division, Kothi Compound, Rajkot - 36 0001.
3. Shri Darshit B Chauhan
Son of Late Shri Bhagat Chauhan,
4. Shri Shamji B Chauhan,
Son of Late Shri Bhagat Chauhan,
Both residents of
C/o Jayabhai Dudhwala
Opp. Sarkari Godown,
Vishi Para, Wankaner ... Respondents
[By Advocate : Shri M.J. Patel (R 1 & 2)]
ORDER
[M C Verma, Judicial Member]
1. This set is comprising of three O.As and two of them, namely Nos. 421/2016, & 40/2018 relates to family Pension and retiral dues of late Shri Bhagatbhai Chuhan, an ex employee of respondent Railway Department 2 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 whereas third one, namely OA No. 395/2016 is for compassionate appointment on the basis of death of said Bhagat Bai Chauhan in harness.
2. Smt Labhuben Chauhan is the applicant in OA No.40/2018 and she stating herself to be second wife of the deceased of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has claimed family pension and retiral dues. In OA No.421/2016 applicant Shri Darshit B. Chauhan claiming himself to be the son, through first wife of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has also claimed the retiral dues and in OA No.395/2016 it is again Shri Darshit B. Chauhan who has claimed compassionate appointment. Previously these three matters were heard in part but on request, of counsel for parties to lis, including that of official respondent adjournment was granted as the request was that there is a possibility of amicable compromise but on 12.07.2018 it was informed that due to some differences documents regarding settlement could not be executed and hence all the three OA were heard together and are being decided by this common Order.
3. The import of factual aspects as has been pleaded in this set of OAs are as under:-
(A) O.A. No. 421/2016:- Applicant of this OA is Shri Darshit B Chauhan and he claiming retiral dues of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has pleaded that his father was permanent employee of railway and died on 04/06/2014. That he and his brother (full blood) Shamji B. are nominee, as per nomination form (Annexure A/2) filled by his father and that official respondent, vide letter dated 12/09/2014 (Annexure A/3) directed him to submit the documents for retiral dues of his father. He pleaded 3 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 further that vide letter dated 15/09/2015 (Annexure A/1) he was directed to submit the succession certificate informing that Smt. Labhuben, being the wife of his father has also claimed the retiral dues. That on the ground of objection raised by respondent No.3 claim regarding settlement dues of his deceased father has not been settled yet. He in addition to official respondents impleaded her step mother, namely Labhuben as respondent No.3. It has been prayed to quash letter dated 15/09/2015 (Annexure A/1) and to direct the respondents to settle all legal claims like DCRG, leave salary etc of his father and to release the payment with 12% interest.
(AA). Official Respondent (Respondent No. 1 & 2) did file reply pleading that when there is claimant declaring herself as widow of late employee, payment of settlement dues of late employee cannot be arranged to nominee unless succession certificate is submitted by one lady Smt. Labhuben being the wife of deceased employee have also claimed the retiral benefit and therefore retiral/settlement dues has not been paid and succession certificate was demanded which has not been supplied. Smt. Labhuben, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 3 pleaded in her reply that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and thus is entitled to Retiral/settlement dues and merely by nomination applicant has no right to get the retiral dues.
(B). O.A. No. 40/2018:- Applicant of this OA is Smt. Labhuben and she claiming herself to be second wife of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has claimed retiral dues of Bhagatbhai Chauhan as well family pension. The OA has been filed with application for condonation of delay. In addition to official 4 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 respondents, she has impleaded her step son, namely Shri Darshit B. Chauhan and Shamji B as respondent No.3 & 4. It has been pleaded by her that first wife of Bhagatbhai Chauhan died on 11/05/1991 and thereafter said Bhagatbhai Chauhan married her on 18/08/1991. That Bhagatbhai, her husband was permanent employee of railway and he died on 04/06/2014. That she submitted papers for pensionary benefit but vide letter dated 11/11/ 2014 (Annexure A/1) she was informed by respondent that Shri Darshit B. Chauhan and Shamji B, both son of her husband from his first wife have taken objection and she was directed to submit the succession certificate. She claimed that being sole alive wife of the deceased employee she is entitled to all pensionary benefit. It has been prayed to quash letter dated 11/11/2014 (Annexure A/1) and to direct the respondents to release her, the family pension and other retiral dues.
(BB). Official Respondent (Respondents No. 1 & 2) did file reply pleading that no other proof in support of claim except the marriage certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, to show that she is the wife of deceased employee was filed. That succession certificate is required to establish the claim of the applicant. That PF, DCRG,& GIS are payable to the nominee and nominee of deceased employee, as per office record are his sons, namely Shri Darshit B. Chauhan and Shamji B. In rejoinder applicant pleaded that son of first wife of her husband has filed OA 421/2016 and it has been admitted therein by them that she is the wife of their father.That her husband in declaration for privilege pass has 5 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 referred her as his wife and in LIC policy also has mentioned her name as his wife. No reply was filed by respondents No. 3 & 4. (C). O.A. No. 395/2016:- Applicant of this OA is also Shri Darshit B. Chauhan and he stating himself to be son, through first wife of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has claimed appointment on compassionate ground. He has pleaded that his father was permanent employee of railway and died while in service, in harness on 04/06/2014.That after death of his father WLI of Official respondent collected the details and pursuant to communication of Official respondent he thereafter supplied requisite data for his appointment on compassionate grounds but vide order dated 15/09/2015 (Annexure A/1), informing that consent of widow of deceased employee is must and that his request is received is without consent of the widow and unless the status of family member of ex employee is cleared, it will not be possible to process the matter. It has been prayed to quash letter Annexure A/1 and to direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground without further delay. In addition to official respondents, he has impleaded her step mother, namely Labhuben as respondent No.3. (CC). Official Respondent (Respondent No. 1 & 2) did file reply pleading that name of father of applicant was wrongly written as Ishrat Kanji, that one lady Smt. Labhuben have also claimed the pensionary benefit, being the wife of deceased employee and therefore succession certificate was demanded which has not been supplied and hence case for appointment on compassionate ground can't proceed. Smt. Labhuben, respondent No. 3 in her reply disputed the claim of applicant 6 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 and pleaded that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and thus is having first right and applicant has no right to get the appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties in all the three OAs and perused the pleadings and documents on record. Learned Counsel Mr. M.S.Trivedi has urged that that father of Darshit B. Chauhan was permanent employee of Railway and he died, in harness on 04/06/2014. That Darshit B. Chauhan and his brother Shamji B. are nominees, as per nomination form (Annexure A/2) filled by his father and that they are entitled to retiral dues of his father.That official respondent directed to submit the succession certificate but when nomination is there, there is no need of succession certificate. He also contended that claim of respondent No.3 about retiral dues is untenable and she is raising unnecessary objection and because of her untenable claim official respondents are not settling the claim regarding retiral dues. Learned Counsel to fortify his submission that it is the right of nominee(s) to receive the service benefits of deceased employee as per nomination placed reliance on Order dated 28/06/2013 of this Tribunal, passed in O.A. No. 407/2012 and urged to direct the respondents to settle all legal claims like DCRG, Leave Salary etc and to release the payment with interest. He did not dispute the status of respondent No.3 as the wife of father of applicant Darshit nor disputed that after her marriage with father of applicant Darshit a son had also born to her 4.1 Pressing OA No 395/2016 for appointment on compassionate ground of applicant Darshit B Chauhan Learned Counsel Mr. Trivedi urged 7 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 that to maintain harmony in the family applicant offered to relinquish his right of retiral dues and that almost a settlement had been arrived at and applicant executed the affidavit also and submitting so, ld counsel drew my attention to affidavit executed and filed by applicant Darshit on the record, on 01/05/2019 wherein he has stated that if his step mother gives NOC for his appointment on compassionate ground, he would not claim his father's due of Railway. Learned Counsel urged that for extraneous consideration respondent No. 3 is not giving NOC but still official respondent could process his case taking recourse of Rule 74 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, he referred the Rule and Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate grounds.
5. Learned Counsel Ms. S.S. Chaturvedi submitted that Smt. Labhuben Chauhan is the widow of deceased employee Sh. Bhagat Kanji Chauhan who expired on 04/06/2014 and being his widow she fulfilled papers for pensionary benefits but came to know that Sh. Darshit and Shamji, sons of her late husband through his first wife had taken objection for releasing the same in her favour. It is urged that she is only alive wife of deceased employee and as per Rule is entitled for family pension and other retiral dues. Learned counsel disputed the claim of Sh. Darshit and Shamji on retiral benefit and urged that it is not the nominee but the LRs of the deceased who are entitled to benefit of retiral dues. She also urged that nomination in favour of Sh. Darshit and Shamji is of date prior to marriage of Labhuben Chauhan, with the deceased ex employee of the respondent department and that a son, namely Ghanshyam has also born, on 20/06/1993 to her from this wed lock so in changed 8 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 circumstances nomination form filled before marriage could not be given effect. Learned Counsel also objected claim of Sh. Darshit for appointment on compassionate ground.
6. Shri M.J.Patel Advocate, appearing for Official Respondents in all the three OA urged that the amount of PF, DCRG and GIS is payable to the nominees and that the sons of deceased, namely Darshit and Shamji are nominee of the deceased ex employee. He contended that official respondents have not violated any rule or provision of pension manual but because of dispute in the family of deceased employee respondent could not be able to release the settlement dues.That case for family pension and appointment on compassionate ground could also be not resolved because of dispute in the family of the deceased employee and therefore, respondents directed to produce succession certificate. That, respondents are willing and ready to release the dues & family pension to right person and also to consider the case for compassionate appointment also as per rules.
7. I have considered the rival submissions. Grievances of applicants of these OAs pertains to (I) family pension, (II) retirement dues and (III) appointment on compassionate ground. In OA No.40/2018 applicant Labhuben Chauhan, stating herself to be second wife of the deceased of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has claimed family pension and retiral dues and in OA No.421/2016 applicant Shri Darshit B. Chauhan claiming himself to be the son and nominee has also claimed the retiral dues. As outcome of OA No. 40/2018 & OA No.421/2016 would be a direct appropriate of the 9 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 controversy about right of widow and of nominee hence firstly these two OAs are being taken up.
8. First of all undersigned would like to take up the issue of family pension. As regards the entitlement of family pension to the widow relates, Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly has held that right to receive Pension is a valuable right and is recognized as a right to property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The widow is entitled to receive family pension. As far as status of applicant in OA No.40/2018, namely Labhuben Chauhan relates, her status as wife of the deceased of Bhagatbhai Chauhan has not been disputed much less seriously by the official respondents or by applicant of OA No.421/2016, namely Shri Darshit B. Chauhan who is also the respondent No. 3 in OA No.40/2018. Additionally affidavit of Shri Darshit B. Chauhan, filed on 01/05/2019 on the record of OA No.421/2016 reveals that Labhuben Chauhan is his step mother. There is document, Annexure A/3 on the file revealing that Ranjanaben wife of Bhagat Bhai died on 11/05/1991 and Annexure A/4 of the file, issued by Gram Panchayat Chapani reflects that Bhagat Bhai remarried Labhuben. Some other documents also reveal that she is the wife of deceased employee. It thus can be held, without hesitation that Labhuben, applicant of OA No.40/2018 & respondent No.3 of OA 421/2016 is the widow of deceased ex employee Bhagat Bhai Kanjibhai Chauhan and thus, as per Rules she is entitled for family pension
9. Taking the issue of retiral/settlement dues, I did find that in pleadings of OA No. 421/2016 and in argument advanced, on behalf of 10 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 Darshit. B. Chauhan and on behalf of official respondent as well, it is there that as per nomination form (Annexure A/2 of OA 421/2016) Darshit B. Chauhan and his brother Shamji B are nominee. Ld. Counsel Ms. S.S. Chaturvedi, counsel for Smt. Labhuben Chauhan did not dispute nomination in favour of Sh. Darshit and Shamji and only has urged that it is of date prior to marriage of Labhuben Chauhan & Bhagatbhai and that after marriage of Labhuben Chauhan & Bhagatbhai a son, namely Ghanshyam has also born on 20/06/1993 to the couple so in changed circumstances nomination form filled before marriage could not be given effect for disbursing the retiral dues. What transpires from her submission is that she without disputing the status of Darshit B. Chauhan and Shamji B. as nominees cantered around that said nomination cannot be given effect.
10. I myself have gone through the Nomination - record produced by the official respondents and it is fortifying the fact that late Railway employee had made nomination in favour of his two sons from first wife for receiving retrial benefits. Taking note of entirety there remains no doubt that deceased ex employee made Darshit B. Chauhan and Shamji B, his two sons, his nominees in nomination form (Annexure A/2) for retiral dues of 50% share each. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for Darshit. B. Chauhan that Darshit B. Chauhan and his brother Shamji B being nominees are entitled to retiral dues and he also placed reliance the order of this Tribunal passed in OA no. 407/2012 whereas as per Learned Counsel for Smt. Labhuben Chauhan she (Labhuben Chauhan) being only alive wife of deceased employee is entitled to retiral dues. She has 11 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 contended that it is not the nominee but the LRs of the deceased who are entitled to benefit of retiral dues.
11. Rule 74 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides for Nomination of Railway Employees and it reads as under:-
"74. Nomination -
(1) A railway servant shall on his initial confirmation in a service or post, make a nomination in Form 4 conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable under rule 70.
(Authority: File No. 2015/F(E)III/1(1)/4 dt.17.06.16 .......RB NO.70 Provided that if at the time of making the nomination -
(i) the railway servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in a favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family; or
(ii) the railway servant has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
(2) If a railway servant nominates more than one person under sub-rule (1), he shall specify in the nomination the amount of share payable to each of the nominees in such manner as to cover the entire amount of gratuity.
(3) A railway servant may provide in the nomination -
(i) that in respect of any specified nominee who pre-deceases the railway servant, or who dies after the death of the railway servant but before receiving the payment of gratuity, the right conferred on that nominee shall pass to such other person as may be specified in the nomination;
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the railway servant has a family consisting of more than one member, the person so specified shall not be a person other than a member of his family;
Provided further that where a railway servant has only one member in his family, and a nomination has been made in his favour, it is open to the railway servant to nominate alternate nominee or nominees in favour of any person or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;
(ii) that the nomination shall become invalid in the event of the happening of the contingency provided therein.
(4) The nomination made by a railway servant who has no family at the time of making it, or the nomination made by a railway servant under the second proviso to clause (i) of sub-rule (3) where he has only one member of his family shall become invalid in the event of the railway 12 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 servant subsequently acquiring a family, or an additional member in the family, as the case may be.
(5) A railway servant may, at any time, cancel nomination by sending a notice in writing to the authority mentioned in sub-rule (7):
Provided that he shall, along with such notice and a fresh nomination made in accordance with its rule.
(6) Immediately on the death of a nominee in aspect of whom no special provision has been made the nomination under clause (i) of sub-rule (3) or on the occurrence of any event by reason of which the nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause (ii) of that sub-rule, the railway servant shall send to authority mentioned in sub-rule (7) a notice in writing cancelling the nomination together with a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.
(7) (a) Every nomination made, and every notice of cancellation given by a railway servant under these rules, shall be sent by the railway servant to his Accounts Officer in the case of a gazetted railway servant and to the Head of his office in the case of non-gazetted railway servant.
(b) Immediately on receipt of a nomination from non-gazetted railway servant, the Head of Office shall countersign it indicating the date of receipt and keeping with him or other responsible officer nominated by him for this purpose, and a clear note made in the service confirming that the nominations made by him and the related notices have been duly received and placed on record shall invariably be sent to every railway servant making or cancelling a nomination, by the Accounts Officer in the case of gazetted railway servants and by the Head of Office in the case of non-gazetted railway servants.
Note: - The power to countersign nominated form sent by non- gazetted railway servants may be delegated by the Head of Office to his subordinate gazetted officer.
(8) Every nomination made, and every notice of cancellation given by a railway servant shall, to the extent that it is valid, take effect from the date on which it is received by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (7): -
12. The order of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 407/2012 has been relied upon by Learned Counsel Shri M. S Trivedi. The applicant of said OA no. 407/2012 was the widow and private respondents were her two sons, she was the nominee and her sons even have denied her entry in the house in such background the amount was directed to be released in favour of the applicant of OA No, 407/2012.
13
OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018
13. The principle of law is that the nomination is only the hand which accepts the amount and a nomination does not confer any beneficial interest in the nominee. In the judgment of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another Vs. Smt Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424 it is held that a mere nomination does not have the effect of conferring to the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy, on death of the insurer. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession .
14. In Vishin N Khanchandani & Another v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Another (2000) 6 SCC 724 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Sarbati Devi (supra) holds the field and is equally applicable to the nominee becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of National Savings Certificates received by him under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the amount to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.
15. A Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Chand Aggarwala v. Delhi Administration & Others - (1998) VII AD (Delhi) 639 the Hon'ble High Court while following Sarbati Devi's case (supra) held that it is well settled that mere nomination made in favour of a particular person does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in property after the death of the person concerned. The nomination indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the 14 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 amount or manage the property. The property or the amount, as the case may be, can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession, governing them.
16. In decision dated 20 August, 2009 titled Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 809 of 2002 it is laid down that the controversy involved in the instant case thus is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. On the basis of the factual foundation laid in that case, the deceased died on 08/11/1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed and on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. Holding that amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India to release half of the amount of general provident fund to the appellant within two months
17. Taking cue from aforesaid decision in Shipra Sengupta's case it may be directed even to respondent to distribute the amount of retiral benefit according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 15
OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018
18. In terms of the factual foundation laid in case in hand , the deceased died on 04/06/2014 leaving behind his widow Labhuben, two sons from first wife, namely Sh. Darshit B Chauhan & Shamji and one son, namely Ghanshyam from second wife Labhuben as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, widow Labhuben, two sons from first wife and one son from second became entitled to equal share, meant to say one fourth of the amount of the general retiral dues.
19. Now taking the issue of appointment on compassionate ground of case in hand I did find that the widow (second wife of the deceased employee) had raised an objection that compassionate appointment should not be given to the son of first wife and hence, respondent- department did not consider the claim of applicant. Shri M.J.Patel, appearing for Official Respondents admitted that case for appointment on compassionate ground could not be processed because of dispute in the family of the deceased and that they are willing and ready to consider the case for compassionate appointment as per Rules. Pressing case of applicant Darshit B. Chauhan for appointment on compassionate ground Mr. Trivedi has urged that even respondent No. 3 had an objection to such consideration, still this fact cannot be lost sight of that applicant is being precluded of his right, his candidature was never considered under the policy guidelines and the norms though; he had a right for such consideration.
20. It is pertinent to note that keeping social structure in mind; it would be seemingly right for the Courts to ensure that there is no abuse of the 16 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 Scheme of compassionate appointment either by the employer or by the applicant/claimant. Instruction for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, issued by respondent department provides that compassionate appointment can be terminated on the ground of non-compliance of any condition stated in the offer of appointment after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him/her to explain why his/her services should not be terminated. This indicates that conditions, in the offer of appointment may be imposed, in case compassionate appointment is made and such condition may also be relating to financial help to widow of the deceased employee. It is worth noting that the widow has not applied for compassionate appointment and applicant Harshit B. Chauhan is the eldest son of deceased employee and he to maintain harmony in the family even did offer to relinquish his right of retiral dues but still respondent No. 3 is not giving NOC. In such circumstances claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was required consideration.
21. In view of the foregoing factual and the legal scenario it would be appropriate to quash all impugned order / orders of all three OAs of this set and to dispose of the OAs with direction. In result impugned order/ orders of all three OAs are hereby quashed and respondents thus are directed as under:-
(a) To consider the case of applicant Smt. Labhuben, for family pension and to grant her family pension as per Rules and the arrear calculated be paid, with interest at the rate permissible under Rules, 17 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018
(b) To release settlement / retiral dues, one fourth in favour of Labhuben W/o Late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan, and one fourth each in favour of Sh. Darshit B Chauhan, Shamji, and Ghanshyam S/o ex employee Bhagat Bhai Kanjibhai Chauhan.
(c) To consider the case of applicant Sh. Darshit B. Chauhan for appointment on compassionate ground as per Rules / Instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased ex employee.
(d) The respondents are also directed that in case any formalities to be fulfilled on the part of any beneficiary is needed, viz. filling of any form or supply of any document, concerned beneficiary giving reasonable time to do the needful shall be informed by respondents, in writing, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Directions at Clause (a), (b) & (c) be complied with within two months after fulfilment of formalities by beneficiary, if he /she / they was/were directed to do.
22. With above said observation and directions all three OAs stand disposed of. Pending M.A., if any in either of OA also stand disposed of accordingly.
(M C Verma) Member(J) mehta 18 OA NOS. 421/2016, 395/2016 & 40/2018 19