Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Babita on 4 November, 2015
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10382/2015
Date of Judgment : 4th November, 2015
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Rishi Kapoor and Ms. Gunjan
Bansal, Advocates for UOI.
versus
BABITA ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 25986/2015 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W. P. (C) 10382/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.05.2015
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The widow
of a temporary employee of the petitioner, who had worked for 20
years died while in service. The widow of said employee made an
application seeking compassionate appointment for her son. Since,
her request was not acceded to, she approached the Tribunal. The
Tribunal has allowed the OA. The operating part of the order reads
as under:
"7. Therefore, on the grounds of
humanity and great principles of our
Constitution, I direct the respondents to
consider the case of the applicant for
compassionate appointment within six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The OA is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and has failed to take
into account the fact that husband of the respondent herein was an
employee with temporary status and thus the representation of his
widow cannot be considered for compassionate appointment for
her son.
5. We find that the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is without any force for the reason that the husband of
the respondent was employed on the basis of an office order dated
24.12.1992. As per this order, casual employees were given a
status of temporary employee based on the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The workers who had rendered
three years of continuous service were to be treated at par with
Temporary Group-D Employees of the department and would thus
also be entitled to such benefits as such admissible to the Group-D
employees on regular basis. The following benefits were made
available to Temporary Group-D Employees as per the OM :
a) All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees.
b) Holidays as admissible to regular employees.
c) Counting of service for the purpose of pension and
terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees
appointed on regular basis for those temporary status and
who complete three years of service in that status while
granting them pension and retirement benefits after their
regularization.
d) Central Government Employee Insurance Scheme.
e) G.P.F.
f) Medical Aid.
g) L.T.C.
h) All advances admissible to temporary Group -
Employees.
i) Bonus
6. Reading of this OM would show that main aim and objective was
to grant various benefits including holidays as admissible to regular
employees, leaves as admissible to temporary employees, counting
of the services for the purpose of pension, terminal benefits,
Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme, G.P.F.,
Medical Aid, L.T.C. etc.
7. A complete reading of this OM would show that there was no
intention on the part of the petitioner to deprive this section of
employee who has put in three years of continuous work. The aim
and objective of granting compassionate employment to the family
of the employee who die in harness so that their family do not live
in poverty.
8. In the present case, the husband of the respondent has put in 20
years of continuous work. In our view, there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner will consider
the request of the respondent in the light of the OM and grant
compassionate employment to her son on the same terms and
conditions as was enjoyed by the husband of the respondent, within
a period of four weeks.
9. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 25985/2015 (Stay)
10. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the present
application is rendered infructuous.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 04, 2015
gr
