Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Geeta Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 23 September, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
40
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 690/2010.
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6539/2010.
Smt. Gita Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
..
Date of Order :: 23rd September 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the appellant.
Dr. Pratishtha Dave, Government Counsel.
Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the respondents.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
While allowing the application (IA No. 14742/2011) for early listing, the matter has been considered today itself in view of the urgency stated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2010 as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6539/2010.
By the said order dated 24.09.2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the challenge, as made by the petitioner-appellant to the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annex. 7) issued by the respondent-Municipal Board, Devgarh in termination of her services; and declined to entertain the writ petition for availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947').
The relevant background aspects of the matter are that Smt.Koyal Bai, mother-in-law of the appellant, had been working 2 on the post of sweeper with the respondent-Municipal Board, Devgarh. She expired on 23.11.1995 while in service. The petitioner, daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, made an application for appointment on the post of sweeper in place of the deceased Smt.Koyal Bai on compassionate ground. On the application so made by the appellant, the respondent-Municipal Board proceeded to appoint her on the post of sweeper on compassionate ground by the order dated 05.11.1996. However, such services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 11.06.2010 with the observations that under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996') she, as the daughter-in-law of deceased employee, was not falling in the category of dependents and, therefore, her services were terminated with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra- court appeal.
The learned Single Judge, while considering the writ petition, posed the question if the petitioner was falling within the definition of workman under the provisions of the Act of 1947; and whether an industrial dispute could be raised by her or not? The learned Single Judge noticed the response of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the said question that the impugned order was entirely illegal and suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge considered the definition of the workman per Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and 3 found that the petitioner was having the alternative remedy provided under the Act of 1947 and hence, declined to entertain the writ petition.
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2010 so passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-petitioner has preferred this intra-court appeal.
During the course of consideration of this appeal, on the question as to whether the appellant has the alternative remedy under the Act of 1947 or not, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner responded with the submissions that though he was not disputing the availability of such remedy but in the present matter, the respondents have passed a wholly illegal order in violation of the principles of natural justice and then, the remedy under the Act of 1947 cannot be said to be an efficacious one inasmuch as, it would take a very long time in adjudication and in decision upon making of reference by the Government. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant do not make out a case for interference by this Court.
In the matter of the present nature, even when the allegation of the appellant is to the effect that the respondents have passed an illegal order terminating her service without complying with the principles of natural justice, the normal rule of taking recourse to the remedy under the Act of 1947, wherein a specific procedure and mechanism has been provided for dealing with such grievances, cannot be avoided. This Court is unable to find any substance in the submissions as made on behalf of the 4 appellant that adjudication under the Act of 1947 is likely to take some time and for this reason, the remedy may not be an efficacious one. While consumption of some time before adjudication and final decision in these kind of matters by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court cannot be denied but such a consumption of time remains inbred in every adjudicatory process where the final decision is taken in accordance with law after opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. However, when a particular adjudicatory mechanism has been provided in the statute and there are no exceptional circumstances to avoid or side-track the same, ordinarily, the recourse ought to be to such statutory alternative remedy only. In the fact situation of the present case, when the learned Single Judge has declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction for availability of alternative remedy, we find no reason to take a different view in intra-court appeal.
We may notice that during the course of submissions, a few aspects relating to the merits of the case also came to the fore, particularly when the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she was appointed on compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 and her services were wrongly terminated with reference to the provisions contained in the Rules of 1996 to which, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that, in fact, the appellant was not even entitled to be given such a compassionate appointment under any of the Rules aforesaid for her husband, Shri Devanand (son of the 5 deceased employee Smt. Koyal Bai), being a Government employee and working as a teacher in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was not having complete instructions in regard to such factual aspects. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the ground as being suggested before this Court had not been the reason for passing of the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annex. 7). The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, in fact, the appellant was confirmed in the services and pay fixation was also carried out per the order Annexure-6.
From the documents as paced on record, we find that for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment in place of her mother-in-law, the appellant made an application supported by the affidavit of the married daughter of the deceased employee. It appears that the status of all the direct dependants, if any, of the deceased, including the son of the deceased (i.e., the husband of the appellant-petitioner) were not specifically given out while seeking and obtaining the appointment on compassionate basis.
Though we are not making final comments on any of the aspects relating to the merits of the case but it goes without saying that if the appellant obtained compassionate appointment without disclosing all and the material facts, particularly regarding the status of the heirs and direct dependants of the deceased employee, the matter would be of serious nature where a particular employment, meant for the bona fide unemployed 6 person, was snatched and grabbed by the appellant in the name of compassionate appointment. However, we refrain from making final comments in this regard as the learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, has relegated the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Act of 1947 and we are not interfering therein.
This appeal remains totally bereft of substance and the same deserves to be, and is, hereby dismissed.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/