ZONAL MANAGER AND ORS. Vs. RAJKAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHER of the Respondent was an employee of Appellant, who died in harness on 4.8.1996. In 1990, Appellant framed a policy for giving appointments on compassionate ground, as contained in Circular dated 20.8.1990. The Policy applied to those employees, who died in harness and also to those, who were retired on medical ground before reaching the age of 55 years. In terms of the Policy, it was the zonal managers of the Appellant, who were competent to appoint in the zones. The Policy made it clear that the application for compassionate appointment should be made within one year of the death of the employee. The Policy directed, to the extent to which we are concerned, that "Compassionate Appointments shall be made only in deserving cases where there is no earning member in the family of the deceased/retired and the appointing authority should satisfy about the genuineness of the case". In view of the said Policy, the Respondent applied to the Appellant for compassionate appointment on 14.9.1996.

(2.) FOR no just reason, not forthcoming from voluminous pleadings filed before the writ court and before this Court, the said application was not considered until March, 1998, when the Respondent was asked to furnish information as to why in the application, it has not been shown that his sisters were dependent on the deceased. In June, 1998, the Respondent furnished the necessary clarification, even then the application of the Respondent was not considered. On 7.7.1998, a ban was imposed on appointments on compassionate ground. The ban was lifted only on 5.6.2000. When the ban was lifted on 5.6.2000, the Appellant, by a Circular dated 5.6.2000, imposed a condition in its Policy that the yardstick of poverty line shall be applied to determine financial destitution/penurious condition of the family to decide whether or not, a case deserves consideration for compassionate appointment. It was indicated that, as on that date, according to Planning Commission, the poverty line amounts to those having income of Rs. 1767.20 for a family of 5 members. Circular dated 5.6.2000, however did not indicate whether income of Rs. 1767.20 was monthly or yearly income. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, however, submitted that the same was monthly income.

(3.) THE facts, as mentioned above, and in particular imposition of ban, lifting of ban, ground for rejection and the letter of the Respondent acknowledging rejection of his application while asking for appointment on the post of driver, were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when His Lordship dealt with the writ petition. Inasmuch as, the matter was kept pending, in the background of the facts pleaded before the learned Judge for no just reason since 14.9.1996, the learned Judge felt that a positive direction is required to be given and, accordingly, while awarding cost of Rs. 5,000/ - in favour of the Respondent, a mandamus was issued upon the Appellant to give appointment to the Respondent on compassionate ground within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of the learned Judge. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed and in the appeal, various facts and documents, as mentioned above, have been brought on record.