KUNTALA MOHANTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a married daughter entitled to compassionate appointment following the death of her father The petitioner's such claim having been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in its order dated 16.2.1998, she has filed this writ application challenging its validity.

(2.) PETITIONER 's father Dambarudhar Mohanta while working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in Radhijkadeipur Branch Post Office expired on 30.10.1995 leaving behind his widow Sumitraand two children including the petitioner as daughter. After the demise of Dambarudhar Mohanta, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar requested his widow Sumitra to submit application in the prescribed form for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. In response to the said request, the petitioner submitted the application with required documents. The matter was considered in the Circle Relaxation Committee meeting which was held on 3.7.1996 in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar. The said committee found that the petitioner being a married daughter of the deceased employee cannot be treated to be his family member. Accordingly, the committee did not recommend her for appointment on compassionate ground. This was informed to her in Chief Post Master General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar's Memo No. RE/17.1/92 dated. 9.7.1996. After the said decision, steps were taken to fill up the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Redhikadeipur. The Junior Employment Exchange Officer, Champua sent a list of six candidates. These persons were asked to submit applications and documents and after verification, Mitrabhanu Giri(opp. party No. 5) was selected and appointed on 25.4.1997 as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Radhikadeipur. The petitioner, in the back ground stated above, filed O.A.No. 309 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which after hearing dismissed the case by its order dated 16.2.1998 at Annexure 3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment relied upon the following cases. Let us examine if any of them is of any assistance to him. The first case is that of Savita Samvedi (Ms.) v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 380. In that case, question arose as to whether the married daughter who was a railway employee was entitled to regularisation of the railway quarter allotted to his father who was a railway employee after his r etirement. After considering the relevant Railway Board Circular dated 11.8.1992, Supreme Court held that the married daughter is entitled to regularisation of the quarter with affect from the date of retirement of his father. The aforesaid Railway Board Circular provided that the married daughter of a retiring official can be allotted railway accommodation on out of turn basis in case he (retiring official) does not have any son or in case where the married daughter is the only person who is prepared to maintain the parent and the sons not in a position to do so (e.g. minor sons). The aforesaid being factual position, the ratio of that case is of no assistance to the petitioner. The second case is a decision of this Court in Chakradhar Das v. Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited, 1996 LAB l.C. 1621. In that case, this Court held that the son in law, though he does not come within the term 'family member' can be considered by relaxing the Rule 16(1) of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as a deserving case. This Court accordingly directed the concerned department to consider if on the facts and circumstances of that case relaxation as provided under Rule 16(1) could be done. That direction was obviously, made in view of the specific provision empowering the concerned authority to relax the rules in deserving eases. The present is not a case of that type. The third case is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 LAB l.C. 1375. In that case by the time applicant applied for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, he was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, but the application was kept pending without any decision being taken and when the scheme was amended depriving a married son for such appointment, his application was rejected. In the circumstances, the Court held that subsequent change in the policy cannot deprive the applicant retrospectively so as to prejudicially affect his right for appointment on compassionate ground. This case is also of no assistance to the petitioner as the fact situation is quite different. The fourth case relied by Shri Mohapatra is that of a decision of Patna High Court in Sumitra Devi v. State of Bihar, 1997 LAB LC. 1974. In that case, the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the applicants were the citizens of Nepal and not the citizens of India. Learned Single Judge held that the dependants of the Government servant dying in harness would be persons similarly situated irrespective of their citizenship. The ratio of that case has also no application to the case at hand. The fifth case is a decision of this Court in Smt. Ketaki Manjari Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1998 (11) OLR 452. In that case, this Court directed the State Government to consider if on the ground of hardship, prayer of a married daughter can be considered in view of Rule 16 of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, which provides that the State Government may consider the applicability of the Rule considering the undue hardship suffered by the applicant. The ratio of that case, therefore, cannot be extended to the present case. The sixth case is that of Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 1999 Lab LC. 3577. In that case the question arose whether a grandson of a Government servant who died in harness can claim for appointment on compassionate ground. That was a case in which under the relevant rules a grandson does not come within the meaning of 'family.' A learned Single Judge, however, held that as the definition is inclusive one, the grandson is to be treated as a member of the 'family.' With great respect we are not inclined to accept such a wide interpretation made by him. The last one is that of a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. The Idea of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathswami Thirukeli, AIR 1996 SC 1697. In that case question was with regard to conferment of property on wife under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Its ratio has absolutely no application to the present case.