A RADHIKA THIRUMALAI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER HAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common law does not oblige an employer to provide appointment to the dependants of a deceased employee. Even the Constitution of India does not specifically oblige any employer to provide compassionate appointments to the legal heirs or the dependants of the deceased employees. In other words, no dependant of an employee who dies in harness can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right unless a scheme is framed by the concerned employer either under a statute or in exercise of its executive or administrative power providing such appointments. However, in consonance with the concept of Welfare State, in recent times, the employers both in private and public sectors have evolved schemes providing for compassionate appointments to the legal heirs and the dependants of the deceased employees to mitigate the hardship that may be caused to-such legal heirs and the dependants on account of the untimely death erf an employee in harness. Accordingly, in the present case, the management of the respondent company has evolved a scheme by way of an executive act providing for compassionate appointments to the dependants of the employees who died in harness.

(2.) The petitioner is one Smt. A Radhika Tirumalai @ Ratheka. The petition averments disclose that the husband of the petitioner was serving the respondent company as Senior Supervisor at the time of his death who is said to have died in harness on 9-10-1987. Thereafterwards, in pursuance of the scheme evolved by the respondent company, the petitioner claims to have made an application on 23-10-1987; again on 2-12-1987 to the management of the respondent company requesting the latter to consider her case for appointment to the appropriate post under the scheme. It is claimed that the petitioner passed S.S.C. Since the respondent company refused to consider her candidature so far, she filed this writ petition in this Court in the year 1991 seeking a writ of Mandamus to the respondent company to provide her any suitable appointment under the scheme. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No.22217 of 1994 for amendment of the prayer so as to question the validity of Rule 78.3 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, of 1964 for short the 'Rules', framed by the Board of Directors of the respondent company insofar as the said rule prescribes test and interview to the dependants of the deceased employees and insofar as it provides appointmentonlydependingupon the availability of vacancies. That W.P.M.P. was ordered by this Court by a separate order and permission was accorded to amend the prayer.

(3.) On service of notice, the respondent company has filed its counter to the main writ petition as well as to the W.P.M.P. No.22217 of 1994.