UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUSAMMA CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India along with its Departments are before us in appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to provide the respondent with an employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post.

(2.) We notice that the genesis of the claim and the attempt to enforce the claim are very much distant in time; the former being the death of the respondent's father in the year 1972 and the later being the claim for compassionate appointment made by the respondent in the year 1997. There is no dispute that the respondent's father died in harness while serving in the Madras Regiment of the Indian Army in the year 1972. Going by the specific averment of the petitioner in the writ petition that she was 29 years old in 2002, we have to understand that the respondent was a mere infant at the time of her father's death. Employment assistance was sought for, for the first time, on 3.4.1997, which application was returned to the respondent for re-submission in the proper form, accompanied by supporting documents and it is averred that the same was done on 31.05.1997. By Exhibit P1 dated 19.6.1997, the 4th respondent forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent, the application being registered under Priority-II(A), as evidenced by Exhibit P2.

(3.) On the respondent not receiving any appointment, she approached this Court, initially in the year 2001 by W.P. (C) No. 14558 of 2001, which was disposed of by Exhibit P3. Exhibit P3 directed consideration of her application and to intimate the present position of her application within a period of two months. The respondent having received neither intimation nor appointment, was before this Court with C.C.C. No. 624 of 2002. The contemnor appeared and produced Exhibit R2 dated 12.08.2002. Exhibit R2 informed the respondent that though her claim has been registered under Priority-11(A) category, since no vacancies were notified by the Central Ministries/Departments, she could not be accommodated. It was also categorically stated that the Director General of Employment and Training (DGET) cannot just provide a job, especially since the respondent had become over-aged for Central Government employment. The contempt case, hence, was closed.