UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI Vs. LAXMIRANI BEHERA @ LAXMIMANI @HEMALATA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.7.2000 passed in O.A. No. 697 of 1998 and order dated 14.08.2001 passed in Review Application No. 22 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal'). Opposite Party No. 1 was the applicant before the Tribunal.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 filed the application for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme on the basis of her claim to be the wife of deceased employee Harish Chandra Behera who died while in service under petitioner No. 3, Director and Commandant, Proof and Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, Balasore on 12.12.1997. Petitioners filed counter to the rejoinder resisting the claim for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme. Petitioners disputed Opposite Party No. 1 's status as the wife of the deceased employee. It was further averred by the petitioners that as per office memorandum dated 26.09.1995 of Ministry of Personnel (P.G.) Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, maximum of 5% of vacancies are to be filled up under rehabilitation scheme and by that time no such post was available to be filled up. It was also contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal upon reference to materials on record, more specifically order of the S.D.J.M., Balasore in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Opposite Party No. 1 against the deceased employee and the judgment of this Court in M.A. No. 753 of 1998 arising out of a proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act holding the Opposite Party No. 1 to the legally married wife of the deceased employee, came to the finding that Opposite Party No 1 is the widow of the deceased employee. Petitioners having not disputed the distress condition of Opposite Party No. 1 it was held by the learned Tribunal that Opposite Party No. 1 is entitled to be appointed to any post under petitioner No. 3 on compassionate grounds as per rules. Learned Tribunal' took note of office memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension dated 26.09.1995 providing for compassionate appointment of maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group C or D posts authorizing the appointing authority to hold back up to 5% of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission, so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. However, keeping in view the main object behind offering compassionate appointment to a member of family which has been suddenly launched into penury due to untimely demise of the sole bread earner, it was directed by the Tribunal to the petitioners to provide Opposite Party No. 1 an appointment under compassionate grounds as against next available vacancy commensurating with her education qualifications. In issuing such direction, the Tribunal relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1994 4 SCC 138 and Anr. decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, and observed that as delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment there can be no waiting list for absorbing persons to get a compassionate appointment. Petitioners appear to have preferred review application solely on the ground that in view of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and Anr.,1994 SCC (L&S) 737, Tribunal could not have issued direction to the department to provide appointment to the Opposite Party No. 1. Learned Tribunal took note of the fact that decision relied upon by the department to seek review of the order passed in the O.A. having not been relied upon by the department in their pleadings and the department having not disputed the indigent/distressed condition of Opposite Party No. 1, order passed in O.A. did not warrant interference in view of limited scope of exercise of jurisdiction for review.

(3.) The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in assailing the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal was that in view of mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and Anr. (supra), the Tribunal could not have issued direction for compassionate appointment of Opposite Party No. 1. It was urged that in the aforesaid decision it has been held that Tribunal or Court can not issue direction for appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus can be exercised simply to direct consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners also sought to avail support from the decision in State Bank of India and Anr. v. Somvir Singh, 2007 AIR(SCW) 1571.