ROSHNI DEVI Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure P-13) passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Husband of the petitioner died whilst in service on 30.9.2002. He is survived by his wife (petitioner), two major sons and a daughter. The elder son is already employed, but lives separately. The respondents took into consideration the assets and liabilities of the deceased. The family of the deceased was not found to be living in indigent condition and the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by order dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure P-13). In the order, it is stated that an objective assessment of the financial condition of the family was made taking into account its assets and liabilities, including the family pension and retiral benefits received by the family. It was also observed that the children are grown up and are able to sustain themselves. They have completed their education. There is no expense being incurred by the family on education etc. Keeping in view all these factors, the respondents have come to the conclusion that family is not considered to be living in penury. It is further stated that the BSNL is following DOPT guidelines, according to which, while ascertaining the financial condition of the family of the ex official, the family pension and other retiral benefits are also to be taken into consideration along with all other relevant factors.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds of her son by taking into consideration the retiral benefits given to the family members of the deceased employee. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Limited, 2000 2 SCT 899; Govind Parkash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation, 2005 SCC(L&S) 590 and Union of India v. Daraupadi Behara, 2005 SCC(L&S) 267.