INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD Vs. JAYABINDU K V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that respondents who were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge are the dependents of former employees of the appellant-company who died in harness. According to the writ petitioners, as per Memorandum of Settlement (produced as Ext. P-1 in W.A. Nos. 948 & 949 of 2012), a scheme was in existence providing compassionate appointment and at the relevant point of time, seniority based on the date of death of the employee was the preliminary criteria. It is not in dispute that applications seeking compassionate appointment were presented after the death of the employees, but they were asked to wait as the dependents of the employees who died earlier were already in queue. It is also not in dispute that as per the scheme that existed, only 5% of vacancies arising out of death, retirement and resignation could be considered for compassionate appointments. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners were taken as casual employees, though compassionate appointment was not given having regard to the plight of the dependents and their families. When the writ petitioners were waiting with fond hope that they would be accommodated in the permanent rolls as and when their turn comes, a new scheme came to be introduced which became the ground for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners, i.e., time limit of appointment within three years from the date of death of the employee. This gave a jolt to the writ petitioners who were waiting in the queue and according to them, even after this new scheme, many others who were much juniors in the queue were appointed by applying new scheme.

(2.) So far as the stand of the respondents before the learned Single Judge, the appellant-company never changed its policy regarding compassionate appointment. From time to time based on changes introduced by the Government of India, they have changed their stand or the scheme. According to the appellant--company, when new scheme of compassionate appointment came to be introduced with a time limit of three years, all those applications which could be considered based on that condition, came to be considered, therefore, the writ petitioners whose applications were beyond three years could not be considered.

(3.) In the above context, some of the party respondents before the learned Single Judge were also made parties who secured appointment on the basis of new scheme. The learned Single Judge after referring to the stand of the appellant--company as per clause 1.4 of Ext. P-1, on what basis they modified the scheme from time to time and so also clause 3.1(c) of Ext. P-1, ultimately placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Tittin,2011 4 KerLT 409as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989 4 SCC 468 proceeded to allow the writ petitions opining that the policy of the Government of India in Ext. P-9 (in W.A. No. 948/12) has to be given effect to in terms of clause 1.4 of Ext. P-1 as rights accrued to the writ petitioners when the policy was in existence as on the date of submitting the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant--company is before us contending that the case of the writ petitioners could not be considered only on account of change of policy of the Government of India for no fault of appellant--company.