Chattisgarh High Court

Ku. Anita Nirala vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 1 November, 2022

                                                                     Page 1 of 16

                                                                            AFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WP(S) No. 5719 of 2016

                         Order Reserved On :-29.07.2022

                          Order Passed On :- 01.11.2022

      Ku. Anita Nirala D/o. Late Tulsiram Nirala, Aged about 27 years,
      Resident of Qtr. No. M-106, Ompur Colony, Post         Rajgamar Colony,
      Rajgamar, Korba, District Korba (CG)                         --- Petitioner

                                       Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through the Chief Manager
      (Min)/SAM Rajgamar Sub Area, Korba (CG)

2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through its General Manager, Office
      of the Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar, Sub Area, PO Rajgamar Colliery,
      District Korba (CG) 495683.

                                                              --- Respondents

                              WP(S) No. 2183 of 2017

     Gendram Nirala S/o. Late Shri Tulsiram, aged about 34 years, Caste
     Satnami (SC) R/o. Bhilai Bazar Near, High School, Post Bhilai Bazar,
     Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District
     Korba (CG)                                                    --- Petitioner

                                       Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through the Managing Director,
      Seepat Road, Bilaspur Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (CG).

2. Sub Area Manager, SECL Rajgamar, Tahsil Civil and Revenue District
      Korba (CG).

3.    Regional Manager, Coal Mines Future Fund Office, Seepat Raod,
      Bilaspur, Tahsil Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (CG)

4.    Samarin Bai W/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 54 Years Caste Satnami, R/
      o. Bhilai Bazar Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station
      Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue                District Korba
                                                                   Page 2 of 16

     Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

5.   Anita D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai
     Bazar Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda,
     Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
     District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

6.   Sunita D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 23 Years Caste Satnami, R/o
     Bhilai Bazar Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station
     Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue             District Korba
     Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

7.   Santram, S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 4 Years Caste Satnami, Minor
     Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Samarin Bai, W/o Late Tulsiram,
     Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar,
     Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District
     Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

8.   Gesbai, D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami, R/o
     Bhilai Bazar Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station
     Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue             District Korba
     Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

                                                            --- Respondents

                             WPS No. 3691 of 2017

     Gendram Nirala S/o Late Shri Tulsiram Aged About 34 Years Caste
     Satnami S C R/o Bhialai Bazar Nar High School, Post Bhilai Bazar,
     Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District-
     Korba, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

1.   South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Seepat
     Road,civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh.

2.   Sub- Area Manager, S E C L Rajgamar, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District
     Korba, Chhattisgarh , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

3.   Regional Manager Coal Mines Future Fund Office, Seepat Road,
     Bilaspur, Tahsil, Civil Aand Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ,
                                                                    Page 3 of 16

     District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4.   Samarin Bai, W/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 54 Years Caste Satnami R/
     R/o. Bhilai Bazar Near High School Post Bhilai Bazar, Polcie Station
     Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba,
     Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

5.   Anita D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami R/o Bhilai
     Bazar Near High School Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda,
     Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District
     : Korba, Chhattisgarh

6.   Sunita D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 23 Years Caste Satnami R/o Bhilai
     Bazar Near High School Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda,
     Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District
     : Korba, Chhattisgarh

7.   Santram, S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 4 Years Caste Satnami, Minor
     Through Natural Guardian Moother Samarin Bai, W/o Late Tulsiram,
     Caste Satnami R/o Bhilai Bazar Near High School Post Bhilai Bazar,
     Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District
     Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

8.   Gesbai, D/o Late Tulsiram Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami R/o
     Bhilai Bazar Near High School Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station
     Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba,
     Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh          --- Respondents

      ________________________________________________________

     For the Petitioners      :Ms. Anita Nirala, Petitioner in person.
                               Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate for petitioner
                               in WPS No. 2183 of 2017.
     For the Respondents      : Mr. V.R.Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul
                               Kesharwani and Mr. R.K. Gupta,
                               Advocates
     For the Respondent       : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate
     ________________________________________________________

               Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                  CAV Order
                                                                    Page 4 of 16

1. Since the issues involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical;

   therefore, they are heard analogous and are being disposed of by this

   common order.

2. In WPS No.5719 of 2016, petitioner Ku. Anita Nirala has filed the petition

   to   direct   the   respondents   authorities   to   grant   compassionate

   appointment or to decide the petitioner's grievances for getting the

   compassionate appointment. In WPS No.3691 of 2017, petitioner

   Gendram Nirala son of first wife has filed the petition and has prayed for

   issuance of direction to the respondent to pay the death/service benefit

   of the deceased Tulsiram to the petitioner i.e. sum of Rs. 16,75,982/-

   with interest. In this case, petitioner of WPS No. 5719 of 2016 Anita

   Nirala has appeared in person on behalf of respondents No. 5.

   Respondent No. 3 Regional Manager Coal Mines has filed the return

   contending that the petitioner had filed succession case No. 17/15

   Gendram Nirala v. Samarim Bai before Civil Judge Class-1 Katghora

   wherein the respondents have filed the reply. It has been contended that

   the respondent CMPF has not received the necessary statutory form by

   the petitioner as such dues have not been settled. It has also been

   stated that as per para 5 of CMPF scheme, 1998 PS-3 particular of

   family in which name of wife is noted as Smt. Sararin Bai, son as

   Gendram Nirala, Ashok Kumar Nirala and daughter Anita Nirala and

   Sunita Nirala. In the nomination form PS-4 for pension CMPF scheme

   1998 the deceased has nominated Smt. Sararin as wife to receive the

   outstanding benefits on his death. It has been further contended that as

   per provision of para 64(i) of CMPF scheme, 1948, the dues are payable

   to Gendram as nominee. But the present respondent has not received
                                                                        Page 5 of 16

    the CMPF claim in form Sahaj from the respondent SECL management,

    therefore, the application could not be proceeded further. In WPS No.

    2183 of 2017, petitioner Gendram Nirala has filed the writ petition and

    has claimed compassionate appointment on account of unfortunate

    death of his father wherein second wife of deceased Samiran Bai,

    daughter Anita Nirala and Sunita Nirala, Santram and Gasbai have been

    arrayed as respondent No. 4 to 8.

3. Facts

of the case, in short, are that petitioner's father was working as Ex

U.G. Munshi (Clerical Grade-II 6 & 7 Incline, Rajgamar Colliery), who

expired on 14.08.2015. It is contended by the petitioner that his father

during his life time, had two wives, namely, Radhabai and Samrin Bai.

The petitioner's father had performed second marriage with Samrim Bai

after death of his first wife and she being the elder daughter of second

wife has applied for grant of compassionate appointment. Gendram

Nirala is the elder son of Radhabai and he is employed under National

Rural Health Mission at Primary Health Centre Kartala since 17.09.2013.

The petitioner preferred an application before the respondents authority

on 04.08.2016 for compassionate appointment and the respondents

SECL in response of her application directed her to obtain succession

certificate as there was dispute between Gendram Nirala and the

petitioner which is pending before the trial Court, Katghora, District

Korba, therefore, the petitioner's application is not decided and pending,

therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court.

4. Respondent SECL has filed the reply wherein they have stated that the

case relating to the issue of getting succession certificate between the

petitioner and her brother is still pending before the Court of Civil Judge,

Class-I Katghora wherein the SECL has also been arrayed party to the

case unless and until the succession certificate is decided the claim of

the petitioner cannot be considered.

5. The respondent No. 1 and 3 have filed their return stating that SECL

management has informed Samiran Bai vide letter dated 10.10.2015 for

making application either for dependent employment or for monetary

compensation, but the wife of Tulsiram namely Smt. Samarin Bai has not

made any application for dependent employment or for monetary

compensation in lieu of dependent employment. The respondents No. 1

to 3 have further submitted that the deceased Tulsiram during service

tenure, has entered the names of his dependents namely Smt. Samarin

Bai (wife), Ges Bai (daughter) Gendram (son), Pancharam (father),

Rajkumari (mother), Anita (daughter) in LTC option form of SECL. Late

Tulsiram has nominated the name of Samarin Bai and Gendram for the

purpose of releasing gratuity amount for equal distribution of the gratuity

amount between them.

6. From the above factual foundation, this Court has to examine whether

petitioner Gendram in WPS No. 2183/2017 and WPS No. 3691/2017

who is already employed under National Rural Health Mission at Primary

Health Centre Kartala on contract basis can be called dependent or the

daughter Anita Nirala who is not in employment is entitled to get

dependent employment or not. This Court to resolve the dispute

between the petitioners in different writ petitions, vide order dated

25.07.2022 had directed Gendram and Anita Nirala to resolve their

dispute, informed the Court by way of affidavit and had fixed the case for

further hearing on 29.07.2022.

7. In pursuance of direction, petitioner Gendram has filed the affidavit

which reads as under:-

1. ;g fd] eS ;g "kiFk i= ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns"k fnukad [email protected]@2022 ds ifjikyu esa fu'ikfjr dj gwaA

2. ;g fd] eS orZeku esa dkWUVsDV ¼lafonk½ csfll ij X;kjg ekg ds fy, lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz djryk esa lqijokbZtj ds in ij vLFkk;h dk;Zjr gwa] tks fd 30 twu 2022 dks lekIr gksus okyk Fkk] ijUrq jk'Vªh; LokLF; fe"ku N-x- ;kstuk ds rgr fe"ku lapkyd ds }kjk 31 tqykbZ 2022 rd c<+k;k x;k gSA fe"ku lapkyu jk'Vªh; LokLF; fe"ku N-x- }kjk tkjh vkns"k fnukad [email protected]@2022 dh izfr bl "kiFk i= ds lkFk layXu gSA

3. ;g fd] esjh lsok [email protected]@2022 rd gS] blds i"pkr lsok, lekIr gks tk;sxhA

4. ;g fd] ;kfpdk dezkad [email protected] 2016 dh ;kfpdkdrkZ dq0 vfurk fujkyk dh lxh NksVh cgu lquhrk fujkyk mez 35 lky yxHkx orZeku esa esjh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj jkmriqjk dkWyst es QkekZflLV ds in ukSdjh djrh gS ,oa yxHkx rhl ls iSarhl gtkj #- ekfld vk;k izkIr djrh gSA

5. ;g fd] esjh ekrk jk/kkckbZ dh e`R;q o'kZ 1987 esa gks x;h gSA esjh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj esjs firkth us u rks dksbZ nwljk fookg fd;k vkSj u gh mudk fdlh vU; efgyk ls dksbZ laca/k FkkA dqekjh vfurk fujkyk Lo;a dks esjs firkth dh nwljh vkSjr dh yM+dh ds #i esa crkdj esjs firkth dh e`R;q i"pkr lkeus vkdj izFke ckj vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gSA ftlesa eq>s tkucq>dj i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA mlds }kjk dqN 'kM;a= dj vkfJrksa dh Js.kh esa esjs firkth ds ukSdjh ds nLrkostksa esa viuk ,oa viuh ekrk ,oa vU; yksxksa ds uke xyr rjhds ls tksM+k x;k gS rkfd og vuqdEik fu;qfDr dk xyr rjhds ls ykHk ik ldsA

6. ;g fd] eSa "kknh"kqnk gw¡A esjh ifRu lqtkrk fujkyk 10 oh i<+h gS vkSj x`g dk;Z djrh gSA esjs nks cPps gSA izFke gf'kZdk fujkyk mez 15 o'kZ ,oa f}rh; iq «k ih;q'k fujkyk mez 10 o'kZ gSA nksuksa v/;;uj gSA esjs firkth dh e`R;q ds i"pkr mudh tek jkf"k ,oa mudh ukSdjh dk ykHk eq>s ugh iznku fd;s x;s gS] ml izdj.k esa Hkh ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS] ftlds pyrs eq>s vius ifjokj dk thou ;kiu djus gsrq ,oa cPpks ds ikyus gsrq etcwjh eas mijksDr dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gSA ftldh lsok, 31 tqykbZ dks lekIr gks jgh gS] ftlds i"pkr esjk ,oa esjs ifjokj dk Hkfo'; va/kdkje; utj vkrk gSA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd] esjs "kiFk i«k dks Lohdkj dj eq>s vuqdEik fu;qfDr dk ykHk fn;k tk;s] D;ksafd esjs firk Jh rqylhjke dk oS/k iq «k flQZ eSa gw¡A ,l-bZ-lh-,y- jtxkekj esa rqylhjke dh lsok iqfLrdk esa ukWfeuh ds #i esa esjk uke ntZ gSA

8. Petitioner Gendram also annexed order dated 27.06.2022 wherein it has

been stated that the tenure of Gendram has been extended upto 31

July,2022 and subsequent extension will be done on the basis of work

valuation.

9. Petitioner Anita Nirala has filed order of Civil Judge Class-1 Katghora by

which succession case No. 9/2017 has been decided. Learned Civil

Judge Class-1 has granted succession certificate in favour of Samarin

Bai and Anita to get gratuity of Rs. 7,80,903.76/-, group gratuity Rs.

2,19,096.24/- L.C.S. Rs. 1,12,000/-, earned leave of Rs. 61,540/- and

amount of CMPF deposited with the Commissioner CMPF to the tune of

Rs. 16,75,982/- with interest.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No.2183 of 2017 has referred

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijya Ukarda

Ahor v. State of Maharastra (2015) 3 SCC 399, judgment of coordinate

Bench of this Court in the cases of Smt Sweta Singh v. State of

Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 6828 of 2021 and Piyush Kumar Anchal v.

State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 1034 of 2022 and would submit that

the coordinate Bench has held that elder son is entitled to get

compassionate appointment and in the instant case petitioner Gendram

Nirala is elder son than other children, therefore, he is entitled to get

compassionate appointment and would pray that the writ petition filed by

the Gendram may be allowed and the petition filed by the Anita Nirala

may be dismissed.

11. So far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Coordinate Bench of this Court which basically deals the issue that the

illegitimate child is also entitled to get compassionate appointment is not

in dispute but in the present case the facts as reflected from the record,

it is quite vivid, that Tulsiram has solemnized second marriage after

death of his first wife, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner Anita

Nirala is an illegitimate child. As per provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, which provides condition for a Hindu Marriage and

according to section 5(i) neither party has a spouse at the time of the

marriage. The fact is not in dispute that deceased has solemnized

second marriage after death of his first wife, therefore, it cannot be said

that petitioner Anita Nirala in WPS No. 5719 of2016 can be said to be

illegitimate child. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the child born from the wedlock of second wife is also entitled

for grant of compassionate appointment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646 has

examined this issue by observing as under:-

17. Even if the narrow classification test is adopted, the circular of the Railway Board creates two categories between one class of legitimate children. Though the law has regarded a child born from a second marriage as legitimate, a child born from the first marriage of a deceased employee is alone made entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. The salutary purpose underlying the grant of compassionate appointment, which is to prevent destitution and penury in the family of a deceased employee requires that any stipulation or condition which is imposed must have or bear a reasonable nexus to the object which is sought to be achieved. The learned Additional Solicitor General has urged that it is open to the State, as part of its policy of discouraging bigamy to restrict the benefit of compassionate appointment, only to the spouse and children of the first marriage and to deny it to the spouse of a subsequent marriage and the children. We are here concerned with the exclusion of children born from a second marriage. By excluding a class of beneficiaries who have been deemed legitimate by the operation of law, the condition imposed is disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved. Having regard to the purpose and object of a scheme of compassionate appointment, once the law has treated such children as legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered for compassionate appointment. Children do not choose their parents. To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their

dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination.

12. Relying upon the judgment of Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar and Anr. vs. The

Union of India and Ors in Civil Appeal No. ....../2022 arising out of SLP

issue and has held at paragraph 9, 10 and 11 which reads as under:-

9. While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitution alguarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. That is to say, a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent. In this regard, 'descent' must be understood to encompass the familial origins of person.5 Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child. The policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. Apart from the fact that strict scrutiny would reveal that the classification is suspect, as demonstrated by this Court in V.R. Tripathi, it will instantly fall foul of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the ground of descent. Such a policy is violative of Article 16(2).

10. We note with approval the decision of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma,6 to which one of us (Justice S. Ravindra Bhat) was a party, which held that descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments. Speaking through Sanghi J., the Court held:

"22. The Court is of opinion that - apart from being textually sound understanding 'descent' in terms of prohibiting discrimination against a person on the basis of legitimacy, or on the basis of his mother's status as a first or second wife, fits within the principles underlying Article 16(2). Not only is one's descent, in this sense, entirely beyond one's control (and therefore, ought not to become a ground of State-sanctioned disadvantage), but it is also an established fact that children of 'second' wives, whether counted as illegitimate or legitimate, have often suffered severe social disadvantage. Another significant observation here is that at the entry level - "legitimacy" is and cannot be a ground for denial of public employment.For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's regulation violates Article 16(2).

11. Given the above, we hold that the issue arising for consideration, in this case, is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. V.K. Tripathi and consequently the judgment and order dated 18.01.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in CWJC No. 18153 of 2017 is set aside. As we have held that appellant No.1, Shri Mukesh Kumar, cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the second wife, there shall be a direction to consider his case as per the extant policy. The Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with the law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of three months from today.

13. Therefore, it is held that petitioner Anita Nirala is entitled to be considered

for grant of compassionate appointment. Now this Court has to examine

whether petitioner Gendram Nirala who is already employed though in

contractual basis and Anita Nirala is not getting any employment is

entitled to get compassionate appointment or not. The basis for grant of

compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee is

intent to alleviate the hardship that the family of the deceased employee

may face upon premature death while in service. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. vs. V.R. Tripathi (supra)

has held in para 13 as under:-

13. The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death while in service.

Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent, for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees. Hence, before a claim for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family of a deceased employee or is granted by the State, the employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a trite principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. Even where there is a scheme of compassionate appointment, an application for engagement can only be considered in accordance with and subject to fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the scheme. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Union of India by the learned Additional Solicitor General is premised on the basis that there is no right to compassionate appointment. There can be no doubt about the principle that there is no right as such to compassionate appointment but only an entitlement, where a scheme or rules envisaging

it exist, to be considered in accordance with the provisions.

14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner Gendram is employed

under National Rural Health Mission at Primary Health Centre Kartala of

course in a contractual basis but there is no material brought on record

whether petitioner Anita Nirala is in gainful employment or not, therefore,

she is dependent on the earning of the deceased Tulsiram, as such as

per the chapter-9 of the National Coal Wage agreement VI and

subsequent National Coal Wage Agreement which deals with the social

security and as per clause-9.3.0 which provides employment to

dependents, petitioner Anita Nirala in WPS No. 5719 of 2016, is the

dependent, as such she is entitled to be considered for grant of

compassionate appointment, whereas petitioner Gendram in WPS Nos.

2183 of 2017 and 3691 of 2017, who is working under National Rural

Health Mission at Primary Health Centre Kartala on contract basis

cannot be said to be dependent on the earning of his father, therefore,

he is not entitled to get employment on compassionate appointment,

view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Haryana Public Service Commission vs.

Harinder Singh and Anther (1998) 5 SCC 452 has held at paragraph 5

and 8 which reads as under;-

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted, therefore, that one who was gainfully employed cannot be termed a dependant of an ex-serviceman. Our attention was invited by learned counsel to the writ petition dated 12-7-1992 in the High Court to show that the respondent was gainfully employed at the relevant times. Para 3 thereof reads thus:

"That the petitioner passed his Bachelor of Engineering in Civil in 1988 from the Engineering College, Chandigarh affiliated with Punjab University, Chandigarh. After passing the said examination, the petitioner worked in Astra Construction Company, Chandigarh for one year, i.e., November 1988 to November 1989 as Civil Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the services of V.S. Construction Company as Civil Engineer in November 1989 and has been working as such in the said company."

In this Court the respondent has stated on affidavit that he was employed between November 1988 to 1989 as a Civil Engineer with the Astra Construction Company. The appointment was temporary and on contract basis. Thereafter he joined the service of V.S. Construction Company as Civil Engineer in November 1989 on contract basis for a period of two years, which period had expired. He was, when he made the said affidavit on 7-4-1993, working in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. for 18 months on contract basis.

10. The whole idea of the reservation is that those who are dependent for their survival on men who have lost their lives or become disabled in the service of the nation should not suffer. The public purpose of such reservation would be totally lost if it were to be made available to those who are gainfully employed. There is no justification for construing the words "dependants of ex-serviceman" in any manner other than that in which the appellant has construed them. This is in accord with the reservation policy itself, as shown by the quotation therefrom aforestated.

15. Considering the entirety of the matter and further considering the fact

that petitioner Anita Nirala is a dependent, therefore, WP(S) No. 5719 of

2016 is allowed by directing the SECL to consider the case of the

petitioner Anita Nirala for grant of compassionate appointment in terms

of the policy of the SECL. So far as WPS No. 3691 of 2017 filed by

Gendram Nirala for grant of service benefit of deceased Tulsiram to the

tune of Rs. 16,75,982/- with interest is disposed of granting liberty to the

petitioner to challenge the judgment passed in Succession Case No.

09/2017 by taking recourse available to him under the law. It is made

clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit with

regard to judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-I Katghora in

Succession Case No. 09/2017.