Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1 By   the   above   order,   the   learned   Single  Judge has considered the disease of father of the  petitioner,   who   was   suffering   from  Chronic  Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), on par with  other   diseases   which   find   place   in   the   policy  framed   by   the   appellant   -   Corporation   vide  resolution   No.5283   as   modified   and   amended   by  circular   dated   29.01.2010   which   provided   that  legal   heirs   /   dependents   will   be   entitled   for  compassionate appointment in case of an employee  suffer   from  cancer   of   any   part   of   the   body,  retinal degeneration of both eyes, loss of vision  of both eyes due to brain disease, complete heart  failure of both ventricular along with congestive  cardiac   failure   and   enlarged   heart   with   cardiac  asthma,   complete   paralysis   of   both   upper   and  lower   limbs,   and   failure   of   both   kidneys,   by  taking recourse to interpretative process on the  basis   of   principle   of  ejusdem   generis    and   the  word   `like'   which   is   included   and   precedes  specific disease and it is further held that list  of   diseases   cannot   be   treated   as   excessive   to  illustrate.  Even decisions of the Apex Court in  the case of  Ramchand v. Randhir Singh [AIR 1995  SC   130]  held   to   be   applicable   so   far   as  interpretation   of   word   'like'   is   concerned.  Considering   policy   and   object   of   offering  compassionate   appointment   and   that   employee   was  indisputably   diagnosed   with   COPD   which   was   akin  of   any   other   terminal   diseases   listed   in   the  circular,   the   appellant   Board   was   directed   to  confer   compassionate   appointment   to   son   of   the  employee   who   was   qualified   to   be   appointed   on  Class­IV   category   having   completed   education   up  to Standard 8 and otherwise eligible. 3 Ms.   Lilu   K.   Bhaya,   learned   counsel   for  the appellant, has taken us through the relevant  circulars   of   the   appellant   -   Corporation   viz.  Resolution   No.5283   dated   15.03.1986   and  subsequent   resolution   No.3420­645   dated  05.01.2010   and   that   disease   viz.   Chronic  Obstructive   Pulmonary   Disease   (COPD)   would   not  fall in the category of terminal ailments.  It is  further   submitted   that   even   father   of   the  respondent   /   original   petitioner   came   to   be  retired on attaining the age of superannuation on  31.05.2012,   and   therefore,   even   keeping   in   mind  the object of offering compassionate appointment,  in the facts of this case, no benefits could have  been accrued by learned Single Judge.   4 As   against   the   above,   learned   counsel  for   the   respondent   ­   original   petitioner   would  contend that father of the petitioner, who was in  service   of   the   appellant   -   Board   had   suffered  earlier   due   to   acquisition   of   land   for  construction   of   power   house   and   as   per   policy  prevailing   at   that   relevant   point   of   time   was  offered   job   and   continued   in   service   and  thereafter contacted the disease like COPD. Even  medical   certificates   and   opinion   of   experts  reveal that he was not able to do heavy work and  virtually   remained   bed   ridden.     Further,  immediately   after   attaining   the   age   of  superannuation   the   employee   had   died   and   upon  retirement   from   service   he   received   all  retirement benefits admissible and permissible in  accordance   with   law.     That   interpretation   put­ forth by the learned Single Judge keeping in mind  policy of the appellant - Corporation for giving  compassionate   appointment,   provided   benefits   of  compassionate appointment even to those employees  who   are   visually   impaired   or   even   suffered  paralysis and failure of kidneys, and therefore,  in the case like an employee suffering from COPD  capacity   of   functioning   of   lungs   is   virtually  reduced   to   lowest,   resulting   into   various  complications.   Even certain articles / research  papers   on   the   subject   by   experts   are   relied   on  and it submitted that order passed by the learned  Single   Judge   contain   an   elaborate   reasoning   and  benefits were conferred considering all relevant  material   on   record   and   the   order   passed   by   the  learned   Single   Judge   do   not   require   any  interference by this Court.

The   Board   approved   that   as   a   policy,  dependents of employees suffering from  terminal   diseases   like   cancer   of   any  part of the body, retinal degenration  of   both  eyes,   loss   of   vision   of  both  eyes   due   to   brain   disease,   complete  heart   failure   of   both   ventricular  along   with   congestive   cardiac   failure  and   enlarges   heard   with   cardiac  asthama,   complete   paralysis   of   both  upper and lower limbs, and failure of  both kidneys, could be considered for  complement   in   the   Board   subject   to  availability   of   vacancy   and  qualification   requirements   laid   down  and subject also to the condition that  the   family   has   no   other   source   of  income.   Such   appointments   would   be  considered   only   if   the   sick   employee  is retired on these medical grounds.

5.1  The aforesaid policy was modified and  amended   by   Circular   dated   29th  January,  2010. It was represented before the Court  that   diseases   like   Hemlplegia   and  Paraplagia   were   required   to   be  incorporated in the aforementioned Board's  Resolution  as  they  were  serious  diseases.  Hemlplegia   is   a   disease   whereunder   a  person   suffers   paralysis   of   one   side   of  the   body.   The   Paraplagia   means   paralysis  of   both   the   lower   limbs.   Accordingly   the  said   diseases,   namely   Hemlplegia   and  Paraplagia   were   incorporated   as   the  ailments in the policy for the purpose of  giving   compassionate   appointment   on  condition   that   percentage   of   permanent  disability   must   be   more   than   60%.   It   is  the   further   case   of   the   petitioner   that  benefit   of   the   policy   was   granted   to   one  Smt.Umaben M. Shah who was suffering from  serious   disease,   even   though   the   said  disease   was   not   covered   as   one   mentioned  in the Resolution No.5283.

5.2  Now,   the   stand   of   the   respondent  Corporation   in   denying   compassionate  appointment  and  refusing   to apply  Board's  Resolution   is   that   in   the   policy  Resolution   the   terminal   diseases   are  specified   and   mentioned;   they   are   cancer  in   any   part   of   the   body,   retinal  degenration   of   both   eyes,   loss   of   vision  in   both   eyes   due   to   brain   disease,  complete heart failure of both ventricular  along   with   congestive   cardiac   failure,  enlarged   heart   with   cardiac   asthama,  complete  paralysis   of   both   upper   as   well  as   the   lower   limbs,   and   failure   of   both  kidneys.   It   is   the   case   that   only   in  respect   of   employee   who   suffers   from   any  of the said mentioned diseases, claim for  compassionate appointment under the policy  could be considered and if the employee is  not   suffering   from   any   of   the   diseases  mentioned, benefit would not liable to be  accorded   to   him,   treating   him   no   covered  under the policy."