Orissa High Court

Afr Basanti Sa vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited on 10 August, 2021

                       ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK


                         W.P.(C) NO. 14298 OF 2014

           In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
           Constitution of India.
                                  ---------------

   AFR     Basanti Sa                             .....      Petitioner


                                       -Versus-

           Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
           and others                              .....    Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : M/s. S.C. Samantaray, S. Pattnaik and U.K. Sahoo, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : M/s. R. Sharma, P.R. Patnaik, S.N. Barik, R.K. Ray & S. Mishra Advocates

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

Date of hearing: 05.08.2021:: Date of judgment : 10.08.2021

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, being the wife of

deceased-Suresh Sa, who was an employee of Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking to // 2 //

quash the letter dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-12

issued by opposite party no.3 rejecting her claim of

dependant employment as per clause-9.3.0 of the

National Coal Wages Agreement-IX (NCWA-IX).

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that

the petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa was appointed as

Driver (T) on 01.01.1986 in the Belpahar Open Cast

Mines of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL).

Subsequently, he was promoted to category-II and

confirmed in category-I on 01.01.1987. Thereafter, he

was posted in IB Vally Area and continued as such till

he was posed at Lakhanpur area as Dumper Operator.

He was sent for refresher course of Training Institute,

IB Vally, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited during October,

1999. While continuing in service at Lakhanpur Open

Cast Project, he died in a road accident on 20.01.2007,

at the time of returning home, leaving behind his widow

Basanti Sa (petitioner), one daughter and two sons. The

petitioner, upon death of her husband, on 12.03.2007

applied for the death benefit of her Late husband // 3 //

enclosing all documents which were not provided.

Subsequently, on 25.09.2008, she applied for

compassionate appointment until her sons get

appointment as dependant. She also submitted

similar letter, along with all the necessary documents,

which was received by Lakhanpur O.C.P. on

03.10.2008. The petitioner, along with the application

in the prescribed form, submitted legal heir certificate,

Family Praman Patra, Character Certificate, No

Objection of family members, five photographs, besides

her voter identity card. Though the application was

complete in all respect, there was no response from the

opposite parties. Consequently, on 16.11.2010, she

made a representation to the Sr. Personal Manager, and

also further representations to the Chief Vigilance

Officer (CVO) on 09.05.2011 and 21.07.2011 claiming

CMPF, pension under CMPS 98, Leave Encashment,

Compassionate appointment under clause-9.4.3 of

NCWA-IX, but no action was taken. Again on // 4 //

29.09.2011, she made a fresh application to the Sr.

Manager, Personnel of MCL.

2.1 The petitioner, after waiting for six years from

the date of death of her husband for compassionate

appointment, as a dependant, received a letter on

18.08.2012 from the Chief Manager (Personnel),

Lakhanpur Area wherein the petitioner was advised to

attend an enquiry on 24.08.2012 with regard to her

claim of compassionate appointment. The petitioner

attended the enquiry on the date fixed, but she did not

receive any communication with regard to its outcome.

The petitioner requested for release of terminal benefits

like gratuity and other benefits, as due and admissible

to the deceased employee. In response to same, gratuity

was released after four years of the death of her

husband and she was also allowed to receive a meager

pension of Rs.1800/- per month, and she was under

threat of eviction from the quarter allotted to her

husband.

// 5 //

2.2 In spite of several requests, when the

petitioner was not provided compassionate

appointment, she approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C) No.14541 of 2013 seeking compassionate

appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme

as per NCWA-IX. This Court, vide order dated

05.08.2013, disposed of the said writ petition directing

the Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL, Lakhanpur Area to

look into the grievance of the petitioner and consider

the same in accordance with the prevailing rules and

take a decision thereon within a period of thirty days

from the date of production of certified copy of the

order. The said order was duly communicated to the

Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL, Lakhanpur Area,

pursuant to which, the petitioner was communicated,

vide letter dated 23.09.2013, that her case was

processed for taking a decision as per prevailing rules

for appointment on compassionate grounds. On

24.09.2013, the Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL,

Lakhanpur Area moved his project officer for taking // 6 //

necessary steps in the matter. On 03.10.2013, the

Senior Manager (P&A) called upon the petitioner to

produce 18 listed documents, which she complied vide

letter dated 16.10.2013, and the same was

acknowledged by the authority on 17.10.2013. On

20.10.2013, the petitioner was directed to appear before

the medical board for age assessment. Accordingly, she

appeared before the medical board and was found fit

and her age was determined as 42 years. But,

subsequently on 28.12.2013, she was intimated that

the Area Screening Committee would meet on

30.12.2003 with all related papers and major

dependant family members. She produced all the

papers in her possession justifying that she is the wife

of Late Suresh Sa and all the service records to prove

that Suresh Sa is the son of Gangarath Sa, for which

she is entitled to appointment as dependent of the

deceased employee of MCL as per the NCWA-IX.

2.3. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment was rejected, vide letter // 7 //

dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-12, on the plea that

her husband-Suresh Sa claiming as the son of

Gangarath Sa was appointed as Mazdoor category-I

under land looser scheme against the land acquired in

village Darlipali on 14.03.1984. In the year 1987,

Gangarath Sa lodged a complaint before the General

Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Brajrajnagar against

Suresh Sa. In the year 2000, Smt. Balamati Sa, wife of

Late Gangarath Sa made a complaint before the Sub-

Area Manager, Lakhanpur OCP against fake

employment of Suresh Sa and requested to provide

employment to her adopted son Thabira Sa in place of

Suresh Sa. On the basis of said complaint of Balamati

Sa, the Project Officer, Lakhanpur OCP had issued a

letter on 11.10.2000 to Suresh Sa and asked for

comment. On 23.05.2006, another complaint was made

by a person claiming himself as Suresh Sa, son of

Gangarath Sa of village Darlipali before the District

Magistrate, Jharsuguda endorsing a copy to C.M.D.,

MCL and on receiving the aforesaid complaint, the // 8 //

Director, Personnel, MCL, vide his letter dated

26.05.2006, advised the General Manager, Lakhanpur

Area to enquire into the matter and take appropriate

action. During course of enquiry, Suresh Sa expired by

a road accident on 20.01.2007. Thereafter, the Project

Officer, Lakhanpur Area constituted a committee

consisting of three officers of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.,

namely, Safety Officer, Deputy Finance Manager and

Deputy Personal Manager to cause an enquiry for

genuineness of facts relating to employment of Late

Suresh Sa. The committee proceeded to village

Darlipali, which is village of the land oustee, namely,

Late Gangarath Sa and met the villagers of Darlipali

and found that Gangarath Sa and Balamati had died by

that time. On enquiry the committee ascertained that

Gangarath Sa was issueless, therefore, Suresh Sa could

not have been appointed as the son of Gangarath Sa in

1986. Before completion of enquiry, Suresh Sa died in

the year 2007. On the basis of dispute with regard to

the genuineness of employment of Suresh Sa claiming // 9 //

the son of land oustee Gangarath Sa, the

compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been

rejected on 30.05.2014. Hence this application.

3. Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that petitioner's husband, Suresh

Sa was appointed in MCL and discharged his duty from

01.01.1986 till his death, i.e., 20.01.2007. It is also

contended that the petitioner has been allowed to

receive the benefit of the deceased employee as the legal

representative of land oustee, even though there were

three complaints lodged by Late Gangarath Sa, his wife

Balamati Sa and another person claiming to be Suresh

Sa. Even though complaints were lodged in the year

1987, 2000 and on 23.05.2006 during life time of

Suresh Sa, enquiry was not conducted to find out the

correctness of allegations made against the deceased

employee. It is further contended that the petitioner,

being the legal representative of Suresh Sa, has been

paid gratuity amount and she has been receiving

pension of Rs.1800/- per month, besides other benefits // 10 //

as due and admissible in accordance with law. It is

further contended that even though the Director,

Personnel, MCL, vide letter dated 26.03.2006, advised

the General Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into

the matter and take appropriate action, the same was

not done during life time of the petitioner's husband,

and much thereafter the enquiry was conducted in

2012, when the petitioner had already submitted

application for compassionate appointment in 2007,

and at no point of time the petitioner has ever been

communicated with regard to the allegation made

against genuineness of continuance of service of her

husband. After the death of her husband, the authority

caused enquiry behind the back of the deceased

employee and ultimately rejected the claim of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment, vide

impugned letter dated 30.05.2014, in compliance of the

order dated 05.08.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)

No.14541 of 2013, without application of mind and

without compliance of the provisions of law, including // 11 //

the principle of natural justice. It is further contended

that under the NCWA-IX, the petitioner is entitled to get

employment on compassionate ground and that cannot

be rejected on a flimsy ground after a long lapse of time,

as there is no dispute that the petitioner's husband was

not working as an employee under MCL. To

substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Smt.

Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal, AIR 2018 SC 783 and

Bhabani Shankar Pandit v. Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, Orissa, 2018 (I) ILR-CUT-316.

4. Per contra, Mr. P.R. Patnaik, learned counsel

appearing for the opposite parties reiterated the

grounds taken in the letter dated 30.05.2014 for

rejection of compassionate appointment and contended

that the petitioner's husband Suresh Sa claiming

himself as the son of Gangarath Sa of village Darlipali

entered into service in MCL under land looser scheme.

There were many complaints, including the complaints

of Gangarath Sa, his wife Balamati Sa and another

person claiming to be Suresh Sa, lodged before the MCL // 12 //

authorities that Late Suresh Sa entered into service by

impersonating himself as the son of Gangarath Sa. The

enquiry committee, after causing enquiry, came to a

conclusion on 25.03.2009 that Late Gangarath Sa was

issueless and Late Suresh Sa claiming himself as the

son of Late Gangarath Sa was appointed as Piece Rated

Temporary worker under erstwhile SECL. Thereafter,

Late Gangarath Sa died in the year 1994 and his wife

Balamati Sa died in the year 2003. Therefore, he

contended that the petitioner cannot claim to be

appointed under dependant employment as per NCWA-

IX, as she has received financial benefits after death of

her husband taking into consideration the enquiry

report submitted by the enquiry committee. Thereby,

contended that the order of rejection for giving

compassionate appointment to the petitioner does not

warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, he

claims for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. This Court heard Mr. S.C. Samantaray,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Patnaik, // 13 //

learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-MCL.

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of

admission.

6. On the basis of the facts narrated above, it is

made clear that the petitioner's husband Suresh Sa

was the employee of MCL from 01.01.1986 till

20.01.2007 and he died in a road accident while in

employment. The petitioner, being the wife of the

deceased employee, has been paid gratuity amount as

well as the pension admissible to her. This fact has not

been disputed by the opposite parties in their counter

affidavit. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is

stated as follows:

"6. That is humbly submitted here that the statement made in almost all the averments are correct, but however, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed under dependant employment as per the National Coal Wages Agreement-IX (NCWA- IX) and since she had received all the financial benefits after the death of her husband Late Suresh Sa, taking into consideration the enquiry report as per // 14 //

Annexure-C as well as the Legal Heir Certificate as per Annexure-D."

7. In view of such admission in the counter

affidavit and particularly when the financial benefits

admissible to the petitioner after the death of her

husband has been paid, there is no valid and justifiable

reason not to extend the benefit of compassionate

appointment to her. As such, the reasons, which have

been assigned in the impugned letter dated 30.05.2014

in Annexure-12, relate to the entry into service of

deceased Suresh Sa, being the legal representative of

Late Gangarath Sa, who is a land oustee of village

Darlipali. If during his life time Late Gangarath Sa

lodged a complaint before the authority in the year

1987, but the authority sat over the matter without

casing enquiry at the relevant point of time and

subsequently, Late Gangarath Sa died in the year 1994.

Thereafter, his wife Late Balamati Sa also lodged

similar complaint in the year 2000, but no action was

taken on such allegation and subsequently, she also

died in the year 2003. On 23.05.2006, another // 15 //

complaint was made by a person claiming himself as

Suresh Sa before the authority. On receiving the

aforesaid complaint, the Director, Personnel, MCL, vide

his letter dated 26.05.2006, directed the General

Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into the matter

and take appropriate action. Instead of taking

immediate steps, the authority slept over the matter.

Ultimately, the petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa died in

a road accident on 20.01.2007. The cumulative effect of

the facts clearly indicates that during lifetime of the

deceased employee, the opposite parties have not taken

any care to cause enquiry, so far as his entry into

service is concerned. After his death, if any committee

is constituted or any enquiry is conducted, the same

cannot have any justification, as because a right has

already accrued in favour of the deceased employee by

his continuance in service for more than 20 years. More

so, after the death of the deceased employee, his wife,

the petitioner herein submitted her application for

compassionate appointment. At no point of time, she // 16 //

has been communicated about any dispute with regard

to entry of her husband into service, rather her

application was entertained and she was called upon to

make good the documents that were not filed, which

she complied. Thereafter, she was called upon to

appear before Medical Board for age assessment,

pursuant to which she appeared and her age was

determined as 42 years and she was found fit. Thereby,

the opposite parties now cannot take a contrary stand

with regard to her husband's entry into service being a

beneficiary of land oustee, rather they are estopped

from raising such objection at this stage. Therefore, the

reasons which have been indicated in the order

impugned for denial of benefit of compassionate

appointment to the petitioner, cannot sustain in the eye

of law, as the same are violative of principle of natural

justice.

8. It is of relevance to note that a Bipartite

Agreement was entered into on 23.12.2000 called

National Coal Wages Agreement (in short "NCWA"), // 17 //

which is binding on the parties. The compassionate

appointment is governed by the said agreement. For

just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant

provisions of such NCWA are referred to below:

"9.3.0. Provision of employment to dependants

9.3.1. Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who died while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows:

9.3.2. Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. Insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Para 9.5.0.

9.4.0. Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place.

xx xx xx

9.4.3. Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place:

i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.

(ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by Coal Company concerned, not arising out of injury or disease as in Para (i) above, the concerned employee will be eligible for the benefit under this Clause if the employee is upto the age of 58 years.

// 18 //

(iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter/ widowed daughter in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the employees may be considered.

(iv) The dependant to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit shall not apply in the case of spouse.

9.5.0. Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant.

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be reguLated as under:

(i) in case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs 4000 per month or employment irrespective of her age.

(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependants is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs 3000 per month or employment.

In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.

(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment // 19 //

commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates as in Paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1-1-2000."

9. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the

provisions of employment to the dependent have been

made under clause-9.3.0. Under Clause-9.3.1, the

employment shall be provided to one dependant of

workers, who are disabled permanently and also those

who died while in service. Under Clause-9.3.2,

employment to one dependent of the worker, who dies

while in service, is entitled to be considered for

compassionate appointment. Similarly, under sub-

clause-(iv) of clause-9.4.3, it has been specifically

mentioned that the dependant to be considered for

employment should be physically fit and suitable for

employment and age should not be more than 35 years,

provided the age limit shall not apply in the case of

spouse. Under sub-clause-(iii) of clause-9.5.0, it has

been specifically mentioned that in case of death either

in mine accident or for other reasons or medical // 20 //

unfitness, under Clause 9.4.0 if no employment has

been offered and the male dependant of the concerned

worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on

a live roster and would be provided employment

commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he

attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male

dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will

be paid monetary compensation as per rates as

indicated in Paras (i) & (ii) above. The said agreement

was effective from 01.01.2000.

10. On the basis of the materials available on

record, the petitioner was directed to appear before the

medical board for her age assessment on 20.10.2013.

Subsequently, she appeared and though she was found

within the age limit and she was determined as 42

years, in the meantime, more than seven years have

elapsed, so by this time she must have attained the age

of 49 years. On the basis of the NCWA-IX mentioned

above, being the wife of the deceased employee, the

petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment.

// 21 //

As now her age has been more than 45 years and her

two sons are available to get employment, in that case,

the option may be left to the petitioner either she or one

of her sons can be given compassionate appointment

befitting to their skill and qualification as they must

have attained the age of majority in the meantime.

11. Similar question had come up for

consideration before the apex Court in Smt. Subhadra

(supra), wherein the question of compassionate

appointment governed by Bipartite Agreement, namely

NCWA was under consideration. The apex Court has

come to a finding that the compassionate appointment

is governed by Bipartite Agreement and the terms of

agreement are very specific and give no room for any

discretion, and having so found, in paragraphs-7, 8, 9,

10 and 11 of the judgment held as follows:

"7. In Para 9.5.0(ii) of the Agreement, it is very clearly and specifically mentioned that a female dependant, if below 45 years of age, has an option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment. It is not an option reserved to the employer, but an option given to the employee. It was in terms of the Agreement only that the appellant had been insisting that // 22 //

she should be given employment, if she is otherwise eligible in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. But the second respondent kept on insisting that the son, being above the age of 12 years, would be kept on live roster until he attains the age of 18 years and till such time, the appellant would be given compensation @ Rs 3000 per month in terms of Para 9.5.0(iii) of the Agreement.

8. Para 9.5.0(iii) would come into play only in case para 9.5.0(ii) does not operate. Employment is assured to the dependant in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. If the female dependant opts for employment, there is no further discretion left to the employer, unless she is otherwise ineligible. There is no such contention raised by anybody.

9. in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no other option but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and dispose of the appeal in the proper perspective of the Bipartite Agreement.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the employment to the appellant at this stage and age may not be a workable relief since the appellant herself has Later requested for employment to her son. But the question is how to compensate the appellant for the period from 2004 to 2018.

11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be met and complete justice to the appellant will be rendered in case the appeal is disposed of as follows:

I) The second respondent is directed to appoint one son of the appellant, who has otherwise become major as of now, as per the choice of the appellant, within two months from today. Needless to say that the appointment will be commensurate with the qualification and entitlement of the incumbent.

// 23 //

II) From 1-2-2004, as ordered by the High Court, the appellant shall be paid Rs 3000 per month along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the respective dates when the amount became due.

III) Towards all other claims on account of loss of employment for the last 13 years, as far as the appellant is concerned, it would be just, fair and reasonable that a lump sum amount is paid to the appellant, which we fix as Rs 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs). This amount shall also be paid to the appellant within two months from today."

Considering the ratio decided in the aforementioned

case, the petitioner, having stood in the same footing

and governed under NCWA, is to be considered for

compassionate appointment in accordance with

bipartite agreement and law laid down by the apex

Court mentioned supra.

12. In Haryana State Electricity Board v.

Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, the apex Court

explained the rationale of the rule relating to

compassionate appointment, which is reproduced

below:

"The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, // 24 //

there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."

Similar view has also been taken by the apex

Court in State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC

412, and Commissioner of Public Instructions v. K.R.

Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206.

13. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India,

(1989) 4 SCC 468, the apex Court pointed out that the

purpose of providing appointment on compassionate

grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the

bread earner in the family, and that such appointment

should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem

the family in distress.

14. In Director of Education v. Pushpendra

Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192, the apex Court explained // 25 //

the purpose of compassionate appointment and pointed

out its exceptional nature and the need to take care

that its application did not interfere with the right of

other persons who are eligible to seek employment.

15. In Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel

Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC

1596 it is categorically held that sudden jerk in the

family by reason of the death of the bread earner can

only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being

made available to the family. This is rather unfortunate

but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero

on the death of the bread earner and insecurity

thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump

sum amount is made available with a compassionate

appointment, the grief stricken family may find some

solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the

normal course of events. This being the reasons

assigned, compassionate appointment can be granted

to a member of the deceased family.

// 26 //

16. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of

Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the apex Court laid down

the principles relating to compassionate appointment in

clear and emphatic language, which is reproduced

below:-

"The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not // 27 //

entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule make in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."

17. In Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India,

(2005) 10 SCC 289, the apex Court held that

compassionate appointment is recompense over and

above whatever is admissible to the legal // 28 //

representatives of deceased employee as benefits of

service which they get on death of the employee.

18. In Bhabani Shankar Pandit, mentioned

supra, the purpose of giving compassionate

appointment cannot be and should not be frustrated by

the authority on a flimsy ground, after the death of the

deceased employee by causing an enquiry behind his

back, when the petitioner claimed for compassionate