NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing that Nanak Chand (respondent herein) be given compassionate appointment by the Union of India through the Secretary, Power Corporation of India, either by directing National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation appellant No. 1 herein) or in any of its projects/establishments, Corporations appropriately. It was further directed that in case the present appellant shows reluctance in spite of being asked by the Union of India to give appointment, then the Union of India would be duty bound to engage him and if that contingency arises the respondent herein would be entitled to back wages from February 1, 1993 i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition provided he was not gainfully employed.

(2.) Factual background which is almost undisputed is as follows: Father of respondent one Shri Shakti Prasad was working under Baira Siul Hydroelectric Project of the Government of India. While so working he died on 10.12.1976. The said Shakti Prasad was survived by his widow and three children. In full and final settlement of her claim the widow received Rs. 19,200/ - as per the existing rules. On 20.1.1978 the said Baira Siul Hydroelectric Project was handed over to the appellant -Corporation by Government of India by virtue of a deed of transfer. After attaining majority in 1986 the respondent filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected on the ground that application has been made after 10 years of the death of his father and also that the Corporation had already surplus staff. On 9.5.1989 the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Corporation laid down guidelines to the effect that request for compassionate appointment has to be made within six months of the occurrence of death. Respondent was informed by the authorities of the Corporation about the rejection of his application. On 30.6.1992 the respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for compassionate appointment in the aforesaid Baira Siul Project. By letter dated 30.6.1992 the Deputy Commissioner informed the respondent that since his claim for appointment had already been rejected, there was no scope for any further consideration. Sometimes in the year 1993 i.e. after about 7 years of initial rejection of the 1 request, respondent filed a writ petition CWP No. 161 of 1993 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The writ petition was contested on several grounds by the present appellants. It was the primary stand that it was a highly belated approach for compassionate appointment and in any event the Corporation was not required to deal with the matter. The respondents father was not an employee of the Corporation and when he died he was employed by the Central Government. The High Court referred to instructions issued by Government of India as contained in Swamys Complete Manual and Establishment and Administration, 5th Edition, Chapter XXIX and held that respondent was entitled to the directions.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the directions given for appointment on compassionate appointment were clearly erroneous. The instructions of the Government as contained in Swamys Manual are not applicable to the Corporation which had its own administrative instructions. The highly belated application should have been thrown out at the threshold by the High Court. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet unforeseen financial constraints and therefore no direction should have been given for appointment as done by the High Court.