ASHA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to the State to consider her case for providing employment to her on compassionate grounds in circumstances arising out of the death of her husband while in harness and soon thereafter the extraordinary situation of he death of her son in an accident within six months his appointment on compassionate grounds. It is often said and sometimes it becomes necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to apply to extraordinary situations, extraordinary measures.

(2.) The brief facts leading up to filing the present petition are: The petitioner's husband was a regular safai karamchari serving in the department of education, Punjab. He died in harness during the year 2008. The petitioner applied for a job for her son on compassionate grounds under the ex gratia scheme in place of her late husband. The department accepted her prayer. Her son was appointed as a Sweeper on compassionate grounds. Not six months thereafter her son unfortunately died of an injury in a road accident in March 2010. She lost her husband and her son in quick succession. In these special circumstances she approached the Government once again imploring that she was rendered destitute and if she could be employed on compassionate grounds she could occupy herself in a gainful employment. But no action was taken on her request and her file has remained dormant. This is where she stood when this petition was filed in 2012 claiming directions to the respondents to provide her compassionate appointment.

(3.) In response to the writ petition, the State appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that instructions dated November 21, 2002 (P-8) do not cover her case since a 'mother' was not included as a dependent family member for the purposes of providing compassionate appointments and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been pointed out that the petitioner is in receipt of family pension following the death of her husband late Sham Lal. However, the instructions do not envisage a situation resulting from unexpected deaths of husband and son within a short span of two years. There appears to be hardly any doubt that by the letter of the law no relief can be granted to her as a mother. But what does the spirit of the law ordain? The letter of the scheme of compassionate appointments is tangible benefit but the spirit is not so. What can be done in the facts and circumstances of the case? Would a reasonable man throw out the petition or try and cull out the relief in case it is found justified?