ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JON MAHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole respondent/writ petitioner Ms. Jon Mahanta had claimed appointment on compassionate grounds consequent upon the demise of her eldest sister Grizelva Mahanta, who at the relevant tome was employed as a Stenographer Grade-III in the Office of the Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ulubari, Guwahati. Rejection of the claim led to institution of WP(C) 8875/2018, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2019, with direction to the appellant to accept the application of the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme by treating her to be eligible for applying for compassionate appointment and by considering the claim in terms of the observations and directions made in the said judgment and order within a period of 2 (two) months. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal is laid by the appellant i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Company').

(2.) Facts not in dispute are :

(3.) To justify the rejection, the appellant Insurance Company had raised two primary issues before the learned Single Judge. Firstly, the respondent/writ petitioner was not eligible under the Scheme for the reason that her deceased elder sister was a married employee and not an "unmarried employee", thus disentitling her to claim appointment and, secondly, considering the large financial benefits already received by the mother Pratima Mahanta, the benefit of appointment under the Scheme cannot be extended to the respondent/writ petitioner. Disagreeing with the contentions so raised, the learned Single Judge observed that though the benefit extended to a dependent brother or sister of an unmarried employee appears to be reasonable and justifiable, the denial of such benefit to a brother or sister of a married employee, who is divorced and did not leave behind any issue may, however, cause injustice as in the present case. It was observed that the husband of Grizelva Mahanta predeceased her about two decades ago without leaving any issue and, after the death of the husband, Grizelva Mahanta was staying with her mother and sisters, including the respondent/writ petitioner, and was looking after them. Under these circumstances the learned Single Judge held that the position of Grizelva Mahanta, though was married, but after becoming a widow and in the absence of any issue, was no different from the position of an unmarried woman and, therefore, for all practical purposes, the condition of Grizelva Mahanta as a married employee did not materially differ from the position of an "unmarried employee". Interpreting the expression "unmarried employee", the learned Single Judge observed that it can also be interpreted to mean any employee, who though might have been married but did not leave any living spouse or son or daughter at the time of death, such widowed and issueless employee, for all practical purposes, be deemed to be unmarried for the purpose of granting benefit to his/her dependent brother or sister under the beneficial scheme of compassionate appointment. Taking it further, the learned Single Judge observed that the Scheme under consideration has created two categories of brothers and sisters of a deceased employee one category being the brother and sister of a deceased unmarried employee, the other being the brother and sister of a deceased married employee, with both categories being treated differently. Whereas the former category is permitted to apply for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme, the latter is disallowed from doing so. Thus, tested on the touchtone of Article 14 of the Constitution as to whether the classification of brothers and sisters in the two categories is permissible or not, the learned Single Judge held that the classification cannot be said to satisfy the test of reasonable classification having intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus to the purpose of the Scheme and, therefore, such classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Having regard to the objective for offering appointment under the Scheme, which is to provide financial stability to the immediate bereaved and dependent members of the deceased employee, the learned Single Judge held that notwithstanding the fact that the immediate family members would normally consist of the spouse and children, but since brother and sister as a category have been accepted to be eligible claimants for appointment under the Scheme, it would be unreasonable to deny such benefit to a brother and sister of a deceased employee merely because the deceased employee happened to be married though, in fact, the deceased married employee did not have any surviving spouse or son or daughter but only brother and sister who were dependent upon the deceased employee. In the premises, the learned Single Judge held that the definition of dependent family member, as provided under sub-clause 4 of Clause 2 of the Scheme, by wholly excluding dependent brother or sister in the case of married employee, would be illegal, void and unconstitutional, which vice can be cured if the interpretation given by the Court is accepted by reading into the expression "unmarried employee" to also mean "an employee though married but did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter at the time of death". It was held that for securing social justice, as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, interpreting the expression "unmarried employee" to include "an employee, though was married, but was widowed and issueless at the time of death", such an interpretation would conform to the core constitutional values and principles and help to secure social justice. In conclusion, the learned Single Judge declared that the respondent/writ petitioner was eligible for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme by enlarging the scope of sub-clause 4 of Clause 2 of the Scheme, notwithstanding the fact that her elder deceased sister was legally and technically "married" but, for all practical purposes, was as good as "unmarried". As regards the second contention that the mother Pratima Mahanta having received substantial financial benefits the family cannot be seen to be in a state of penury following the demise of Grizelva Mahanta, the learned Single Judge noted the contention only to be rejected. It was held that receipt of the amount by the mother cannot be a reason for denying appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme. The writ petition was allowed with the following directions: