RAJANI BHARAT CHACHIRE Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, reflected in the present petition, are not in dispute. The petitioners, the husband and the wife, are with their begging bowl before this Court that the wife should be given compassionate, employment of a cleaner in the establishment of the giant Public Corporation of the respondents. Both of them are knocking the doors of the Officers of the Corporation from March, 1992, for invoking a small mercy for their family to get a source of livelihood. It is more than 10 years that the cries of the petitioners were falling on the deaf bureaucratic ears of the Corporation. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India begging for bread and butter for their family.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 2 the husband was employed under the respondents as a Conductor. Unfortunately he suffered diabetic Neuropathy with right side paralysis as a result of which he was declared medically unfit for the post of Conductor by the Medical Board and he was, therefore, compulsorily retired on medical ground from 18-3-1992 at the age of 40 years, a young age indeed to be retired. According to the petitioners, under the Rules of the Corporation, any one of the dependents in the family is entitled to get employment under the Corporation in such circumstances. According to the petitioners and they are right in their averments that from 1992 they have been approaching the Corporation for compassionate employment. There is no dispute that on 14-12-1992 such an application was made for compassionate employment of the wife of the disabled and paralysed husband who was the only earning hand in the family and with his getting paralysed the whole family got paralysed. It appears that the application of the petitioners was rejected on a very flimsy, frivolous and strange ground that the petitioner No. 1 wife had height of 149. 1 cms. while under the Rules the eligibility height for the post of a cleaner was prescribed 152. 5 cms. There is no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 was otherwise eligible in every respect even educationally. We may explain here that the post of a cleaner is not the usual post of motor cleaner like Driver, Conductor as is normally understood. This is the work of cleaning the Buses and, therefore, the nomenclature given to the post is that of cleaner (Swachhak ). It appears that thereafter the eligibility of the shortage of height was relaxed. She had to approach a local Member of Parliament for his recommendation to the Corporation to employ the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate employment. The kind hearted member of Parliament used his good offices and the Corporation informed the Hon'ble Member of Parliament by its letter dated 9-10-1998 that the appointment for the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground on the post of cleaner was sanctioned. However, she was not being appointed for want of availability of vacant post of cleaner. The said Member of Parliament, however, was assured that she will be given job whenever there will be vacancy as per her seniority. Prom 9-10-1998 till this date, we are informed that there was no vacancy of cleaner in this giant Corporation! Even after the said letter, she made several representations but she got stock reply that there was no vacancy and that there was prohibition order of S. T. Central that no woman should be appointed on the post of cleaner till further orders.

(3.) SHRI Kalbande, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has pointed out from the averments in the petition para No. 9 that from 1992 onwards the respondents have appointed at least 3 cleaners in clear vacancies though their claim arose subsequent to that of the petitioner. He has given the names of the appointees and the dates from which they were appointed. There is no denial of this fact. If that is so, the petitioner has been treated unfairly and grave injustice has been done to this paralysed family of the petitioners. We fail to understand why the officers of the Public Corporation have ignored the claim of the petitioners and gave preference to the other claimants though they also might be equally needy. We have no doubt in our mind that the Corporation ought to have given compassionate employment to the petitioner No. 1 as petitioners have priority over the other claims. The respondent Corporation has done grave injustice to the petitioners, by ignoring their legitimate prior claim for employment. There is absolutely no other reason to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioners except that there was no vacancy. Whenever vacancies arose, the officers of the corporation, for the reasons best known to them, have ignored and bypassed the claim of the petitioners. There has been grave miscarriage of justice in the present case. We, therefore, direct the respondent Corporation to employ the petitioner No. 1 in the post of a cleaner or for any other suitable work in the Depot of Gondia, District Gondia. If there is no vacancy, the corporation shall create a supernumerary post to employ the petitioner No. 1 and continue to employ her as a regular employee of the Corporation in the said supernumerary post till a regular vacancy arises where she can be appointed to fill up the said vacancy. The Corporation would be at liberty to abolish the supernumerary post at that point of time. We are passing this extra ordinary order in the special and pathetic facts of this matter. The petition, therefore, succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (2) except the part of the prayer to get the benefits with effect from 1992.