Allahabad High Court
Anurag Awasthi vs The Executive Director Personnel ... on 23 August, 2017
Bench: Arun Tandon, Ritu Raj Awasthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 214 of 2015
Appellant :- Anurag Awasthi
Respondent :- The Executive Director Personnel L.I.C. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Tiwari,R.K. Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
This intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant being Writ-A No.14832 of 2013 has been dismissed.
The facts for deciding the present intra court appeal are as under:
Father of the writ petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer with Life Insurance Corporation of India. He is stated to have expired during harness on 10.07.2011 leaving behind a widow Nirmala Awasthi and a son namely Anurag Awasthi along with two daughters namely Amita Dubey and Archana Pandey who are married and were residing with their family in United States of America.
The widow made an application before the Senior Divisional Manager for providing compassionate appointment of her son on the ground that the family had no source of income. Admittedly, the date of birth of the son was 24.08.1979. He had passed the high school examination in 1984, intermediate examination in 1996, B.Sc. In 1999, MBA in 2008. That a sum of approximately Rs.40 lacs was paid by the Corporation to the family of the deceased. Further a sum of Rs.17,000/- was paid as monthly pension to the family of the deceased employee.
The Corporation vide order dated 16.07.2012 recorded that the son was beyond the age of 30 years on the date of death of employee which was the maximum outer age limit for appointment and that no relaxation in the matter of outer age was to be provided.
This order of the Corporation was subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No.62576 of 2012; Anurag Awasthi Vs. Chairman, L.I.C., Mumbai and others. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2013 requiring the corporation to reconsider the matter in respect of grant of relaxation in the outer age limit for appointment on Class-III post as claimed by the son of the deceased employee.
In compliance to the order of the writ court the Executive Director (Personnel) under order dated 13.2.2013 had rejected the request of the petitioner for such age relaxation. Not being satisfied the writ petitioner filed Writ-A No.14832 of 2013 which has been dismissed under the judgment dated 19.3.2015 giving rise to this intra court appeal.
Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the reason assigned for refusing to grant relaxation in the outer age limit are legally not sustainable and for the proposition he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others; (2005) 10 SCC 289, Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami and another; AIR 2012 SC 2294 as well as upon the judgment in the case of Canara Bank & anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar; (2015) 42 Supreme Court Decisions 705.
Learned counsel for the Corporation however disputes the contentions so raised and would submit that under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1960) which are admittedly applicable in respect of the compassionate employment, also as claimed by the writ petitioner, a power to grant relaxation in outer age limit has been conferred upon the authorities concerned. Reference in that regard is made to Clause 10 and it is stated that earlier the age limit fixed for appointment on Group C post was between 18 years to 25 years. The outer age limit of 25 years has been enhanced to 30 years under the notification dated 13.2.1993. It is stated that from a simple reading of Clause 10 it would be clear that so far as the widow is concerned the relaxation in outer age limit can be provided up to the age of 45 years while in respect of sons and daughter of the deceased employee the relaxation has become redundant inasmuch as under the table the maximum age up to which the relaxation can be granted is 30 years which is the normal outer age limit prescribed under the Regulation 7. Therefore it is submitted that so far as the sons and daughters of deceased employees are concerned no age relaxation is now admissible in the matter of compassionate appointment. He would therefore submit that in the facts of the case the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate in rejoinder submitted that in view of the proviso to Rule 10 the power to grant relaxation in the outer age as well as to waive off the age limit whenever necessary has been conferred upon the authorities as mentioned in the proviso with reference to the post on which appointment is claimed. In respect of Class III post it is the Executive Director (Personnel) who has the competence to grant the relaxation. He can even waive off the outer age limit where required. It is with reference to this proviso that Sri R.K. Ojha would contend that reasons mentioned in the order refusing to grant the relaxation in favour of the writ petitioner beyond 30 years is legally not sustainable, in view of the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by him.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of the present special appeal.
The facts pertaining to the date of death of the employee dying in harness and age of the son claiming compassionate appointment being 31 years and and 10 months on the date of death of the employee father are not in dispute.
In order to appreciate the controversy raised on behalf of the parties it is worthwhile to reproduce Regulation 10 of Regulation 1960 in extensio which reads as under:-
"10. The age of a person at the time of his appointment to the service of Corporation shall not be less than 18 or more than [30 years]* provided that the competent authority may relax the upper age in respect of candidates specified in Column (2) of the Table below upto the limit specified in the corresponding entry in Column (3) of the Table.
TABLE
Sl. No.
Candidates
Age limit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
[ ]@6.
The widow of an employee who dies while in service
The son or unmarried daughter of an employee who dies in service
Ex servicemen
Physically handicapped persons
Members of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes
Other Backward Communities
45 years
30 years
To the extent of service put in the defence service as increased by 3 years subject to a maximum of [47 years of age]@
[37 years]@
[35 years]@
33 years
***Provided further that the Executive Director (Personnel) in respect of appointment of posts in Class III and Class IV. Managing Director in respect of appointment to posts in Class II and Assistant Administrative Officer/Assistant Branch Manager in Class I. Chairman in respect of appointment to posts in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager or equivalent cadre and the Corporation in respect of appointment to posts in other cadres may relax or waive the limit on upper age wherever necessary."
From a simple reading of the aforesaid provision it will be seen that so far as sons and daughters of the deceased employees are concerned covered by Item No.2 of Column 2 the outer age limit to which the relaxation can be granted has been fixed as 30 years in Column 3. This age of 30 years is now the normal outer age limit for appointment on Group-C post as would be clear from the reading of the main clause of Regulation 10 of Regulation 1960. What logically follows is that so far as the sons and daughters of the deceased employees are concerned no relaxation in outer age limit is now provided for under Regulation 10. The conclusion so arrived at by us is supported by the reason that so far as the widow of the deceased employee is concerned relaxation can be provided as per Column 3 up to the age of 45 years. Similarly in respect of ex-servicemen, physically handicapped, SC/ST candidates and other backward class category the relaxation in the outer age limit has been provided upto different age.
In our opinion it is therefore established from the simple reading of the Regulation 10 of the Regulation, 1960 that so far as the sons and daughters of the deceased employees are concerned who claim compassionate appointment on Group C posts no age relaxation is now contemplated under Regulation 10.
So far as the proviso to Regulation 10 of Regulation, 1960 is concerned we may record that the said proviso confers an extraordinary discretion upon the authorities mentioned in the proviso qua waiving off the age requirements or for relaxing the same whenever necessary.
It logically follows that in exceptional circumstances a power has been conferred upon the authorities concerned to further relax/waive the requirement in the outer age limits but that is not the normal rule for granting relaxation. Unless and until some exceptional hardships are pleaded the purpose of exercise of discretion under the proviso by the authority concerned does not arise.
In the facts of the case the Executive Director (Personnel) has recorded following reasons for not exercising his extraordinary discretion under proviso to Regulation 10 of Regulation 1960:-
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) has made it clear that the object of compassionate ground appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment.
After introduction of pension in LIC, compassionate appointments are given in the rarest cases where the family demographics and financial position call for such compassion. Relaxations in time and or age are also based on these considerations.
In view of aforesaid, we are unable to consider your representation."
We find that the reasons assigned therein cannot be termed as arbitrary so as to require any interference by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Nothing could be shown to this Court which may lead to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner-appellant falls within the category of exceptional cases of hardship for exercise of discretion under proviso to Regulation 10 of Regulation 1960.
As already noticed above, the distinction between the normal rule providing for relaxation like in the case of widow or in the case of members of ex-servicemen etc. has to be dealt and interpreted in a manner different to the extraordinary powers conferred under the proviso.
The judgments which have been so heavily relied upon by Sri R.K. Ojha appearing on behalf of appellant in support of his case i.e. Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra) and Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami and another (supra) deals with the situations covered by the main clause of relaxation and not with the provision conferring a discretion in favour of the authorities in exceptional cases. The judgments are therefore clearly distinguishable.
The Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Pitiola Sugar Mills; 2003 (2) SCC 111 has explained that a little difference in the facts of the case will make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision.
We find that no illegality has been committed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. There is no merit in the appeal.
Special appeal is dismissed.
(Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) (Arun Tandon J.)
Order Date :- 23.8.2017
Ram.
