Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunita Mann vs Delhi Police on 29 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.667 of 2012 New Delhi this the 29th day of February, 2012 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Sunita Mann W/o Late Sh. Manish Mann r/o 173, Chandan Singh Mann Wali Gali, Village Hamidpur, Delhi-36. .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Yashpal Rangi ) VERSUS 1. Delhi Police, through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi. .. Respondents O R D E R (Oral)
This Application is directed against the respondents order dated 24.2.2011, as at Annexure P-1, whereby the applicants request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected for the reason that she being the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee does not come under the category of dependent family members under the Scheme for compassionate appointment of employees died in harness leaving the dependents in a state of penury.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Dharambir Singh father-in-law of the applicant was working as Head Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in South Delhi. He died in harness on 6.4.2009. After his death, his wife Smt. Suman Lata sent a request to the respondents for appointment of her son Shri Manish Mann (husband of the applicant) in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, Shri Manish Mann, the applicants husband, also expired on 20.6.2010 in an accident. The wife of the deceased employee and mother-in-law of the applicant then made an application to the respondents on 19.1.2011 requesting for compassionate appointment of her daughter-in-law, the applicant herein, on a suitable post so that she could earn their livelihood. The other son of the deceased employee has given a no objection certificate stating that he would not be claiming appointment on the death of HC Dharambir Singh. The mother-in-law of the applicant was also passed away and thus leaving the applicant in penury with two kids. Standing Order No.39/2009 on the subject of compassionate appointment in Delhi Police defines the term Dependent Family Member as including spouse; son (including adopted son; daughter (including adopted daughter); and brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the employee. Since the daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of dependent family member, the respondents have rejected the applicants claim for compassionate appointment for being a daughter-in-law of the deceased employee without going into the merits of the case. The applicants case is that she has been living as a dependent family member with the deceased employee and has been very unfortunate to have lost her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband leaving the applicant to feed herself along with her two kids without any source of sustenance. The Scheme for compassionate appointment, being a welfare measure, ought to be considered liberally so as to further its underlying object of mitigating the hardship caused to the family of an employee dying in harness. Furthermore, the policy needs the Schedule to be periodically upgraded and revised having regard to the changing conditions of society so as to continue to be an efficacious welfare measure in order to further its underlying object. The scenario in which the applicant has unfortunately been placed in, could not have been in the contemplation of the framer of the Scheme for such instances are quite rare when the daughter-in-law, dependent on the deceased employee, alone survives along with her kids while all other members of the family expired leaving behind to fend for herself. The applicant has come across two judicial orders wherein this question of law has been considered. One such case is Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan and others in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010 wherein the Honble High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 12.9.2011 held daughter-in-law as dependent of Government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment, a copy of this judgment is at Annexure A-7. The Court, inter alia, observed :
Suffice to say that in Indian society, a daughter-in-law is supposed to be treated as daughter. In the society a daughter-in-law, may she be widow, is always treated as an integral member of the family and she possess all honour as well as the responsibilities of the household. In multi ethical society of India, daughter-in-law is supposed to take care of her in-laws family, even after death of her son. Accordingly, the Court held that :
The upshot of the consideration is that widowed daughter-in-law is a dependent of a government servant as defined under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996. As such, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The decision of the respondents for not giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per the Rules of 1996 is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as a Class-IV employee in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1996, on or before 14th October, 2011. Similar view is stated to have been taken by the Allahabad High Court while dealing with an identical situation as reported in 2010(6) ALL.LJ 649.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant made a strong plea for re-consideration of the impugned action by the respondents in the light of Rajasthan High Courts judgment as referred to above as well as the averments made in this OA. All the conditions for the grant of compassionate appointment are present in the case of the applicant. The only lacuna is that the widow daughter-in-law has unwittingly not been included in the definition of dependent family member though in fact, she has indeed been dependent on the deceased employee and living as a member of his family. The learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that let respondents be directed to re-consider their decision in the matter in the light of the observations made by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra) along with the submissions made in the present Application and take a conscious decision as to whether having regard to underlying intent and object of the Scheme for compassionate appointments, the benefits thereof need and ought to be extended to the applicant herein either by interpreting the definition of dependent family member on the lines on which it has been done by the Rajasthan High Court or the definition of term of dependent family member needs to be suitably revised so as to make appropriate provisions to deal with such a situation as emerges in the present case.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the applicants counsel and I have also carefully perused the OA along with its annexures, especially the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court on which the reliance has been placed by the applicants counsel.
5. I am of the considered opinion that the matter need to be given re-consideration by the respondents, especially in view of the Rajasthan High Court judgment (supra) and take an appropriate view in the matter. As such, it is not expedient to keep this matter pending with us any further. Nor it is necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. It would be entirely for the respondents to re-consider the issue in view of the additional information as brought in by the applicant in this Application, particularly, the Rajasthan High Courts judgment (supra) dealing with the identical question and expressing a contrary view. For this purpose, the respondents shall take the present Application as a representation of the applicant. Accordingly, the present Application is disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to consider afresh the decision as contained in their order dated 24.2.2011 by treating this Application as a representation of the applicant and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and inform their decision to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order. It would be open to the applicant then to seek redressal of her grievance, if any, in accordance with law.
6. In view of the limited prayer made by the applicant and having regard to the nature of directions issued, as aforesaid, it has neither been necessary for us to go into the merits of the case nor the directions so issued, are intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever.
7. The Application is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/