UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHEELA RANI SOAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that she is the widow of one late nikhil Chandra Soam, who died on 10th April, 1988 while in service in the army. She claims to be a non-matric having passed only Class- VIII examination from a local school. She claimed that she had two sons, viz. , Ranu Soam and bapi Soam respectively.

(2.) AFTER the death of her husband on 10th April, 1988 she applied to the Zilla sainik Board, Government of West Bengal for appointment in a suitable Group 'd' post. She based her claim on the instructions issued by the Union of India dated 28th November, 1990. The application made by the petitioner was duly received by the authorities. However, no action was taken. Therefore, she made an application to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension cell in Delhi on 25th November, 1991 on the basis of the scheme known as "employment Assistance to the Relatives of Government Servant died while in service". She claimed that she had none to help her and had been almost starving along with two minor sons. This application of the petitioner was transferred by the Director General of E. M. E. to Master General of the Ordnance Branch, army Headquarters, New Delhi. By letter dated 4th March, 1992 the respondent in turn informed the petitioner that her application should be submitted to the Comrnanding Officer of the last zone served by her husband. She again made an application for appointment on a suitable post on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the petitioner did not yield any positive result. She pointed out that in her letter dated 15th April, 1997 it had been observed that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been examined and found a deserving one. In spite of the aforesaid observations a job was not given to her. Ultimately on 20th July, 1998 she was informed as follows:

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid non-speaking order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The respondents had duly filed an affidavit-in-opposition specifically denying the averments made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the case of the petitioner was referred to the relevant authority and has been considered in accordance with the rules and regulations. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Board of Officers in accordance with the rules on the subject and has not been found fit for granting appointing on compassionate grounds. The reasons for rejecting her application by the Army Headquarters were stated as under: