SASHIKANT SINGH Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, as the son of Late Krishnakant Singh, who was working as Senior Operator in CRM Department of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP), Rourkela, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dtd. 12/12/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in T.A. No. 19 of 2015 dismissing his claim for Compassionate Appointment.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that father of the Petitioner Late Krishnakant Singh, while working as a Senior Operator in CRM Department of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP), Rourkela, suffered from Carcinoma Rectum, which was in advance stage of cancer, and due to Cardio-respiratory failure he died in harness on 16/4/2013. The father of the Petitioner, after initial treatment, being diagnosed with the said terminal illness, before his death, requested the Authority for declaration of his Medical Invalidation and Compassionate Appointment in favour of the Petitioner, vide his application dtd. 8/4/2013 submitted on 9/4/2013, which was immediately processed on 10/4/2013. When such request, as made vide application dtd. 8/4/2013, was under process, he became serious and was admitted in Ispat General Hospital (IGH), Rourkela, on 12/4/2013 and was referred to a Specialized Hospital at Kolkata, which was approved by the Director, Medical and Health Services of IGH. But the request of the father of the Petitioner for Medical Invalidation was pending. During treatment at Kolkata, the father of the Petitioner expired on 16/4/2013. After completion of rituals and finding no other alternative, the Petitioner approached the Authority for Compassionate Appointment to overcome the financial distress and hardship caused due to loss of the sole earning member of the bereaved family as well as to repay the cost of treatment and other expenses. After waiting for two months, as the burden and distress was growing, though the Petitioner submitted reminder on 6/9/2013, but no action was taken on such representation. Consequentially, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24681 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14/2/2014 with the following Orders:- "Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction to opposite parties to appoint him under the compassionate appointment against any suitable post. It appears from the record that the father of the Petitioner was working as operator/attendant in Cold Rolling Mill (F) under the Steel Authority of India at Rourkela Steel Plant and while continuing as such he was promoted to the post of Cluster B (Personnel). Thereafter he was promoted to the post of S.R. operative in Cluster C.P. as personal with effect from 31/12/2010. During the tenure of service period he became seriously ill and treated at Plant's hospital and thereafter he was referred to Cancer Institute, Kolkata for treatment and he died on 16/4/2013. After the death of Petitioner's father, the Petitioner has filed a representation on 18/7/2013 before the opposite party no.2 requesting him for compassionate employment on account of his father's death in cancer. However, no action has been taken by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for which the Petitioner has again sent a reminder application to the authority requesting them to consider the application in its proper perspective and give him employment. The Petitioner has not yet received any reply from the opposite parties. Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered by the opposite parties in view of circular dtd. 30/8/2011 floated by Steel Authority of India Limited. Considering the above, this Court disposes of the writ petition with direction to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in view of the circular dtd. 30/8/2011 regarding the guideline for dealing with compassionate employment cases which was floated by Steel Authority of India Limited. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

(3.) Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Tribunal has not applied its mind properly and passed the Order impugned rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for Compassionate Appointment holding that the death of the father of the Petitioner is a case of natural death, though it was well known to the Authority concerned that the father of the Petitioner had suffered from cancer and he was on the last stage. Though the father of the Petitioner had filed the application dtd. 8/4/2013 on 9/4/2013 and the same was processed on 10/4/2013, but the same was kept pending. Thereafter, due to acute illness, the father of the Petitioner was hospitalized on 12/4/2013 and considering the gravity of sufferings, the Director, Medical and Health Services of IGH, referred the case for treatment at Kolkata, where he succumbed to death on 16/4/2013. Instead of considering the application dtd. 8/4/2013, which was submitted by the deceased employee on 9/4/2013, for Medical Invalidation, the matter was kept pending and ultimately he died on 16/4/2013. But the Authority held that there was no declaration from the side of the Authority with regard to Medical Invalidation of the father of the Petitioner. The claim made by the Petitioner for Compassionate Appointment cannot have any justification, as the death was natural one. Such a stand is absolutely misconceived and an outcome of non-application of mind, arbitrariness and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the admitted procedure for consideration of an application for Compassionate Appointment is that the same shall be considered on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee constituted for such purpose. It is also stipulated that the said Committee would meet as per requirement but not later than three months of receipt of an application. It was cited by the Petitioner before the Tribunal that when the Committee had even met within one day of such application due to reported serious condition of one Potnur Sudhakar, Senior Operator (Non-Crane), FM (M) PL.No.980007, whose application was submitted on 26/4/2014 and the same was considered on the very same day, i.e., 26/4/2014 itself, whereas the benefit was denied to the father of the Petitioner. Thereby, the entire action of the Authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and also it was indicated that the father of the Petitioner was referred to higher medical centre being gravely ill and expired there soon and, therefore, the plea of the Opposite Parties, that the Medical Committee could not meet before the death of the Petitioner's father, is nothing but an attempt to hide their evident inaction and delay. Because of callous attitude of the Authority concerned, the declaration could not be made and ultimately the Petitioner was deprived to get the Compassionate Appointment who is otherwise entitled to get such benefit. To substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of State Bank of India v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 and Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India, AIR 2000 SC 1596.