compassionate grounds

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sangeet Lodha and Rameshwar Vyas, JJ. dismissed the Special Appeal by upholding the decision of the Single Judge.

The present case is an appeal preferred against the judgment of a Single Judge Bench wherein the division bench upheld the former’s verdict. The facts of the case bring into question the respondent State’s denial to the petitioner/appellant his appointment on compassionate grounds for having more than two children, rendering him non-eligible for service. The petitioner/appellant here is the son of deceased government employee whose survivors could seek an appointment by adhering to the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (1996 Rules) and Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, Vikas Bijamia contended that even though the appellant had three children, he satisfied all other eligibility criteria and was in fact in dire need of the said appointment. Laying too much emphasis on particularly the ‘number of children’ yardstick defeats the underlying purpose of the 1996 Rules i.e. to provide immediate relief to the family of the bereaved.

The Division Judge Bench upheld the previous Judgment by categorically affirming that in absence of any provision for the relaxation of any eligibility qualification and other service conditions in the Rules, an appointment cannot be offered to the dependent of the deceased Government servant.[Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1179, decided on 30-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi, CJ and Arindam Lodh, JJ. dismissed an intra court appeal filed against the order of learned Single Judge directing the appellant-Corporation to consider the appointment of Respondent 1 in accordance with the ‘die-in-harness’ scheme.

Husband of Respondent 1 was in service of the appellant at the time of his death. Respondent 1 filed a petition for the appointment on compassionate grounds under the die-in-harness scheme. She prayed to an appointment for either of her two children and if none of them were found eligible then in the alternative, she prayed appointment for herself. Learned Single Judge allowed her petition and directed the appellant to consider her appointment, under the scheme, considering her qualification. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge without compliance with the above-stated direction.

While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-Corporation, the High Court observed that the non-compliance of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge could not be justified. The Court further observed it to be a sorry state of affairs that the Corporation on filing writ appeal against the impugned judgment, without having any interim order, has not responded to the decision. The High Court categorically held that mere filing of an appeal along with the application for stay of the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the writ appeal will not give an exclusive right to the appellant to sit over the order. Holding thus, and considering merits of the case, the appeal was dismissed with costs amounting to Rs. 25,000. [Tripura State Electricity Corpn. Ltd.  v. Madhabhi Debnath,  2018 SCC OnLine Tri 117, dated 20-6-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Jharkhand: The Single Judge Bench comprising of S.N.Pathak, J., recently addressed a petition wherein the petitioner prayed for the payment of her deceased husband’s retiral benefits including gratuity and leave encashment, arising out of 23 years of service. The petitioner also prayed to the Court for directing the respondents to provide appointment to her son on compassionate grounds, owing to her husband’s death.

The petitioner had initially filed a petition for addressing her grievances which was disposed of by directing the initial respondents to make necessary payments to the petitioner. Despite the order, in the absence of the respondents complying with it, the petitioner filed another petition which was rejected by the respondents consequent to which the petitioner filed the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had not adhered to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 SCC OnLine Jhar 553 despite the deceased being a work-charge employee and so being entitled to retiral benefits. The opposite party contended that since the deceased was not a regularized employee, he wouldn’t be given the retiral benefits, the wife contends she should be entitled to.

The Court held that the issue had been addressed in the case mentioned by the petitioner wherein it was held, “the work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment” and “The dependents of work charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground”.

Hence, the Court directed the respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits and quashed the plea for employment of the petitioner’s son on compassionate grounds. [Meera Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 2690, order dated 18.8.2017]