UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. N. Radhakrishnan, Special Central Government standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. P. Devarajan for respondents. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11. 7. 1996 in O. P. 4188/93.

(2.) THE appellants are respondents 1 to 4 in the Original petition. THE first respondent's son by name K. Sudarsanan was employed under the second respondent in the Original Petition in the General Reserve engineering Force (GREF) with effect from 5. 2. 1985 as a mason. Sudarsanan was granted 12 days casual leave from 16. 12. 1989 to 31. 12. 1989. While he was returning by Gauhati Express to resume his duties he died on 28. 12. 1989 due to a fall from the moving train. He was unmarried. Hedged leaving his parents, brother and sister. According to the appellants all the benefits due to the deceased were paid to Thankamma, the mother of the deceased whom Sudarsanan has nominated as his next of kin. On 7. 3. 1990 the first respondent applied to the appellants 1 and 2 for grant of family pension and also a request for giving appointment to his eldest son by name Babu. Since Babu had completed 30 years of age, the first appellant advised the first respondent herein to nominate any other male defendant whose age is between 18 to 30 in a prescribed proforma. This communication was sent through Ext. P2. However, first respondent nominated his daughter Sulekha stating that she was unemployed and there was no other person. Since it was not possible to provide employment in the GREF to female candidates as per rules, Ext. P3 request was sent by the first appellant to the third appellant. It is seen from Ext. P3 that the third respondent was requested to consider the name of the female ward of deceased GREF personnel for compassionate appointment as LDC/any other suitable post as per her qualification in lower formation of the army at an early date and if the said girl is given appointment on compassionate grounds in lower formations for the army, one male dependent of defence service person will be given employment in gref and that the individual should be of the age group of 18 to 25 years and should most laid down medical standards. THE home address of the applicant was also furnished in Ext. P3. THE author concluded the said letter by requesting the third respondent to consider the female ward of the deceased for employment in any unit located near to her home town. Copy of the said communication was sent to other departments and also to the female ward of the deceased Sulekha. THE first respondent passed Ext. P4 stating that they are unable to absorb the female ward of the deceased in their department in view of the ban of female employees in BRO. However, they had approached the Head Quarters Southern command to ascertain feasibility of providing employment against vacancies of civilians in Defence in any of the establishment and that the response received was not favourable. Subsequently, the first respondent submitted representations to the first appellant and thereafter filed the Writ Petition contending that the ban on recruitment of female employees is illegal and unsustainable.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel this issue has not been considered by the learned single judge and hence the judgment is not correct. At the maximum the learned judge should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent in the light of Ext. P3 communication and rulings of the Supreme Court on the issue and that the direction to appoint the second respondent in GREF would only put the appellants herein in piquant situation especially when such appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions which remain unchallenged.