VALSALA KUMAR Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both these petitions are one and the same. Sustainability of Ext. P13 order passed by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking the benefit of compassionate employment under Ext. P2 State scheme is the subject matter involved in W. P. (C)No. 12706 of 2004; whereas the Original Petition filed much earlier pertains to different reliefs; viz (i) compassionate appointment under respondent nos. 1 to 3 ; (ii) disbursement of monetary benefits allegedly due in respect of the military service rendered by the deceased husband of the petitioner and (iii) in respect of the claim put forth against the Railways for damages when the deceased husband, while on duty was run over by the train when it was being shunted in the premises of the railway station.

(2.) WITH regard to the reliefs prayed for in the earlier case (O. P. 38809 of 2001), a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents asserting that the request for compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner was duly considered, but no favourable orders could be passed as no vacancy had arisen as allocable to the petitioner on the basis of her turn and the quota earmarked for giving such employment assistance of compassionate appointment. It is pointed out by the learned central Government counsel for the respondents in the said case, with reference to Ext. R1 (b) produced along with the counter affidavit, that the application for compassionate appointment can be kept pending only for one year and if the turn has not arisen in the meanwhile, it cannot be considered any further.

(3.) THE learned Central Government Counsel further pointed out that the question of compassionate appointment can be considered and the benefit can be extended only in accordance with the scheme and that there is absolutely no violation of any of the provisions in the scheme in respect of the quota earmarked or otherwise; particularly when no such challenge has been raised in O. P. No. 38809 of 2001. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Apex Court vide the decision in himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar [ (1996) 4 SCC 560] , has held that the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended by directing the government/department to create supernumerary vacancies (Paragraph 10 ). The law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the subsequent decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A. Radhika Thirumalai [1996) 6 SCC 394] as well. This being the position and since the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the respondents in O. P. No. 38809 of 2001 has not been assailed, absolutely no relief can be extended to the petitioner in this regard.