MANAGING DIRECTOR SUGAR MILLS Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills, Sonepat has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the judgment passed by the Addl.District Judge, Sonepat reversing the findings given by the trial court and directing the appellants to appoint respondent Smt.Nirmala widow of Azad Singh in terms of the relevant rules governing the appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) Azad Singh was an employee of the appellant Sugar Mill w.e.f.1984. He was earlier on daily wages, but his services were regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000. He died on 16.3.2002 leaving behind his widow (respondent - plaintiff) and three children. The widow is statedly a handicapped person. Respondent - plaintiff applied for appointment for her son and the release of service benefits of her deceased husband. She was only paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards provident fund. She was not given appointment on compassionate ground, whereupon she filed a suit. The suit was dismissed, against which she filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has reversed the findings and had directed the appellants to appoint the respondent - plaintiff on compassionate ground. The appeal has also been allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- .

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Co-operative Sugar Mills Employees Rules, 2003 (for short "2003 Rules") to urge that the deceased employee has been defined to mean a person appointed on a regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charges, adhoc, contractual or re - employment basis. He would also refer to a condition that person should have served for at least three years before the case of compassionate appointment could be considered under these Rules. Pointing out that the service of the deceased employee was regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000, it is stated that the deceased did not serve for three years till the date of his death and, thus, could not be taken as a deceased employee under Rules 2003, referred to above. The Appellate Court, however, noticed that deceased Azad Singh was working on daily wages since 1984, though he was regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000. As per the Appellate Court, the issue was whether the 2003 Rules would be applicable in this case or the one which were prevalent earlier, i.e., 1991 Rules because concededly Azad Singh, husband of the respondent - plaintiff had died prior to coming into force of 2003 Rules. The Appellate Court found that the case of compassionate appointment of the respondent - plaintiff would be covered by Rule dated 24.4.1991 and not by 2003 or 2005 Rules as was the view taken by the trial court.