Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Smt Shanti Devi vs M/O Railways on 22 November, 2017
i
:
i
i
iF
by
us
t
L
im
au
i
{
WORLD ee
OA No. 291/00507/2015 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 291/00507/2015
Order Reserved on: 31.10.2017
DATE OF ORDER: 22:\\- 201).
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o late Bhura, aged about 54 years,
R/o House No. 36, Joshi Colony, Ward No. 4, Bichun Road,
Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.).
2, Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o late Shri Bablu Verma, aged about
28 years, R/o House No. 36, Joshi Colony, Ward No. 4,
Bichun Road, Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.).
... Applicant
Mr. K.N. Sharma, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Western
Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power
House Road, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Mr. Y.K. Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Smt. Shanti Devi (applicant no. 1 herein) was appointed in the Railways on the post of Bhishti and she was granted temporary status on the said post with effect from 31.05.1986. Her services were regularized with effect from 31.03.1998. During the course of her employment, she was declared medically de-categorized by the Chief Medical Superintendent, North Western Railway, Jaipur on 05.08.2014. Thereafter, she applied for voluntary retirement and while accepting her request, she was retired vide order dated 03.09.2014. Thereafter, she il! ; ra OA No. 291/00507/2015 2 submitted an application to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, Jaipur for grant of employment to her son on compassionate grounds. She had submitted all the requisite documents but the application for grant of employment to her son on compassionate grounds was declined as he was not having the requisite educational qualification. Unfortunately, her son died on 22.12.2014 leaving behind his widow Smt. Laxmi Devi (applicant no. 2 herein) and two minor daughters. Faced with such a hardship, the applicant no. 1 again submitted an application with the respondents and requested for grant of employment to her daughter-in-law Smt. Laxmi Devi (applicant no. 2 herein) on compassionate grounds as there was nobody to support, and the family was in penury. The said application was declined by the respondents vide order dated 13.03.2015 (Annexure A/1) on the ground that there is no provision in the Rules to grant employment to a daughter-in-law of an employee on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
>, The respondents by way of filing a joint reply have joined the defence and opposed the claim of the applicants and, thus, have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4, Learned counsel for the applicants argued that after declaration of applicant no. 1 as medically de-categorized, there is nobody to support the family and unfortunately she has lost her son on 22.12.2014 i.e. few months after she was declared OA No. 291/00507/2015 3 medically de-categorized. He further submitted that after the death of her son, his widow Smt. Laxmi Devi (applicant no. 2 herein) and his two minor daughters are wholly dependent upon the applicant no. 1 and the family is in the condition of penury. He argued that the widowed daughter-in-law cannot be declined the employment on compassionate grounds as she being a near relative is an integral part of the family. He relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010 (Annexure A/8) in order to substantiate his case that a widowed daughter-in-law cannot be denied the employment on compassionate grounds.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no provision in the policy guidelines for employment to a widowed daughter-in-law on compassionate grounds.
During the course of arguments, he also referred to Master Circular No. 16 dealing with the appointments on compassionate grounds in the Railways. While referring Clause III of the said Master Circular, he contended that the appointment on compassionate grounds can only be granted to son/daughter/widow/widower of the employees. He further contended that the applicant no. 2 cannot even be considered a "near relative" as defined in sub-clause 'a' of Clause III of the said Master Circular. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
6. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsels for both the parties, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the instant case, the applicant no. 1 was medically de-
categorized on 05.08.2014 and she lost her son few months OA No. 291/00507/2015 thereafter on 22.12.2014 who left behind his widow and two minor daughters. There is nobody to support, and the family is in penury. Relevant part of Clause III of Master Circular No. 16 I relied upon by the respondents is reproduced here as under: -
| "JII. PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED ON . COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS:
! | Son/ daughter/ widow/ widower of the employees are eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the circumstances in which such appointments are permissible. Where the widow cannot take up employment and the sons/daughters are minor, the case may be kept pending till the first son/daughter becomes a major i.e. attains the subject to time limits as provided under age of 18 years, f the Circular. The benefit of compassionate be extended to a "near relative/ Para (V) 0 appointments may also adopted son/ daughter". The eligibility of a near relative/adopted son/daughter to such appointments will o the following conditions:
be subject t a. NEAR RELATIVE:
ij. such appointment is not permissible where the railway employee who has died in harness has left behind only th no son/daughter to be supported by the widow, wi her.
son or daughter of the employee or ex-employee d the widow cannot take up ii. The is a minor one an employment.
iii, A clear certificate should be forthcoming from the widow that the "near relative" will act as the bread- winner of the family.
iv. If the family certifies at a later date that the "near relative", who was appointed on compassionate grounds, refuses to support the family, the services of that employee are liable to be terminated v. Once a "near relative" is appointed on compassionate no further appointment shall be given later to or the widow of the employee, on grounds, a son, or daughter compassionate grounds.
"near relative" shall not be vi. The appointment of the or the widow herself considered, if a son or daughter, t is already working and is earning:
-winner of A blood relation who is considered to be a bread "near relative" for the the family can be considered as purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds. /78/RC-1/1 dated 03.02.1981, 1/1/Policy dated 12.2.1990.]" : [No. E(NG)III No. E(NG)II/88/RC-
OA No. 291/00507/2015 5 ' 7, AS per the provisions of Clause III of the Master Circular referred herein above, son/daughter/widow/widower of the employees are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Dealing with an identical situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (supra), has held that a daughter- in-law is an important part of in-laws family and she is required to take all care of household. The term "daughter-in-law" itself indicates that she is to be accepted as "daughter" by in-laws and as such for all purposes, the term "daughter" is wide enough to include "daughter-in-law". The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that applicant no. 2 being daughter-in-law of applicant no. 1 cannot be considered even a near relative, also does not find favour with this Tribunal. It is ridiculous to say that a daughter-in-law in the family is not a near relative. She being an integral part of the family is a dependent of a t servant.
Governmen g. In the conspectus of discussions made in the foregoing paras, the impugne o be illegal and is hereby quashed. The respondents are d order dated 13.03.2015 (Annexure A/1) is held t directed to consider the case of the applicant no. 2 for grant her employment on compassionate grounds within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9, Accordingly, the Original Application stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ty (SURESH KUMAR MONw.\) JUDICIAL MEMBER Kumawat \