DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner who is the son of the late Sh. Basant Lal, an employee of the respondent Nos.2 to 4/National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) seeks compassionate appointment on account of death of Sh. Basant Lal while still in service.

(2.) THE only averments which have been made in the writ petition are that late Sh. Basant Lal while returning back from duty died near Koti Bridge on account of a land slide, since he died when he was in employment with NHPC therefore, NHPC must grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner-son. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that late Sh. Basant Lal died leaving behind Smt. Savitri Devi, widow aged about 60 years; Sh. Dinesh Kumar, son aged about 25 years; Sh. Nilesh Kumar, son aged about 20 years and Ms. Sita Kumari, aged about 21 years. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner 's family is getting a monthly pension of Rs.13,75/- from NHPC but the same is meagre and therefore compassionate appointment should be granted to the petitioner who is one of the sons of late Sh. Basant Lal. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., IV (2000) SLT 706=(2000) 6 SCC 493 and para 13 thereof which reads as under: -

(3.) IN my opinion, the writ petition is bound to fail for the reason that the judgment which is relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the judgment in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra) as per a scheme of Steel Authority of India Limited, the employer was to retain the gratuity and provident fund of the deceased employee and instead was to give monthly payment to the family of the deceased which was to be equal to the basic pay plus dearness allowance that the deceased employee would have got had he been alive and retired on superannuation. The family of the deceased was thus not to get a lumpsum benefit but only the monthly pay plus dearness allowance. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court said that once there is a death in the family, there is no reason that because of grant of monthly payments, the payments towards gratuity and provident fund should not be made, and which latter payments are statutory in nature. This is stated in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment which read as under: -