SUMAN BALA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the paper -book. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.9.2005 (Annexure P -8), whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds, has been rejected by the respondents -Assurance Company. The respondents have clearly mentioned in the order that the petitioners cannot be granted appointment on compassionate grounds, since the claim has been made after a lapse of six years. It has also been mentioned that employment on compassionate grounds has been stopped by the Assurance Company w.e.f. 1.10.2002. Mr. Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 2 was a minor. Petitioner No. 1 has made the application for appointment of petitioner No. 2 only when petitioner No. 2 has reached the age of majority. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds has to be considered under the policy which was prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. on 30.12.1998. Merely because, subsequently, the policy has been scrapped would not be a ground for denying the appointment to the petitioners on compassionate grounds.

(2.) WE are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) SCT 174 (SC) : 1994(4) SCC 138. Repeatedly, it has been held by the Supreme Court that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter or right. The purpose for granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to remove the immediate hardship that would be caused to the family of the deceased employee who died in harness. The purpose is not to grant appointment to the dependents of the deceased as a replacement for the deceased employee. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), it has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court as follows : -

(3.) IN view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.