PREM KANWAR Vs. R S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a widow of one Narendra Singh Rathore, who was admittedly an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur. The petitioner's case is that her husband had died while being in the service of the Corporation on November 14, 1986 and in support of this averment she has placed a document dated January 29, 1987, which is an office order passed by the authority of the RSRTC which has been reproduced in para 6 at page 3, in the body of the writ petition and the original of it has been placed for my perusal by Shri Sharma, today.

(2.) THE sole contention on which the petitioner's claim is being opposed before this Court is that the petitioner's husband Narendra Singh Rathore had resigned and his resignation had been accepted on December 12, 1985 and it was thereafter that Narendra Singh Rathore died on November 14, 1986. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the appointment as the dependent of the deceased employee of the Corporation. Although, no record has been produced before me on behalf of the Corporation to show that the petitioner's husband Narendra Singh had resigned and that his resignation had been accepted on December 12, 1985, but a letter dated June 30, 1987 is on record, which was sent to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Corporation in which the factum of acceptance of resignation has been mentioned. Shri Asopa has also invited my attention to a mention made in Annexure 3, which is a representation to the Chairman by the petitioner made on April 30, 1987, wherein the petitioner has prayed that the order dated January 29, 1987 had been set aside by a subsequent order dated April 23, 1987. This order dated April 23, 1987 has not been produced before this Court either by the petitioner or by the respondent. Shri Asopa has submitted that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has laid down the procedure relating to the recruitment of dependents of the Corporation employees dying while in service and, in accordance with this procedure, Clause 2 (f) 'deceased Corporation employee' means a Corporation employee who dies white in service on or after the date of coming into force of this procedure. Shri Asopa submits that since Narendra Singh Rathore had died after the resignation, it cannot be said that he was deceased employee within the meaning of Clause 2 (f), because he died on November 14, 1986 i. e. after the date of acceptance of the resignation on December 12, 1985. The petitioner, who is the widow of Narendra Singh Rathore, is not entitled for appointment in accordance with this procedure which was evolved by the Corporation in 1981.

(3.) I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings and documents available on record, it cannot be said with certainty that the husband of the petitioner had died while being in service or not, because there is a document sent by the functionaries of the Corporation in the shape of the order dated January 29, 1987 which shows that the husband of the petitioner was removed from service by the order dated January 29, 1987 from the date of his death i. e. November 14, 1986 and, there is also a document of subsequent date i. e. a letter of June 30, 1987, which shows that Narendra Singh Rathore's resignation has been accepted on December 12, 1985, although the record relating to the acceptance of the resignation has not been produced before me. In such circumstances, I find that the benefit of doubt in such cases should go in favour of the petitioner who is a widow of a person who was admittedly in the employment of the Corporation. Even if it is taken that he had died after tendering resignation and that his resignation has been accepted on December 12, 1985, the petitioner being a widow of an ex-employee of the Corporation, is certainly entitled for an employment in the Corporation on compassionate ground notwithstanding the procedure evolved in 1981 by the Corporation. After all even the procedure, which has been evolved by the Corporation, even if it is procedure to deal with the cases of only such persons who are claiming appointment as dependent of a person who had died while being in service, the Corporation being an agency and instrumentality of a Welfare State is supposed to take care of such hard cases as that of the petitioner and, the ends of substantial justice require that in such cases, a suitable employment should be provided. The petitioner's husband was a helper and as is transparently clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner is also not interested in any employment beyond Class IV employee and it would have been in the fitness of things that the petitioner should have been provided with employment as Class IV employee by the Corporation itself, rather than coming forward to contest this matter with an uncertain situation as to whether the petitioner's husband died while being in service or not and the admitted fact is that the petitioner's husband was in the service of the Corporation and on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the ends of substantial justice, it is directed that the Corporation would provide an employment to the petitioner as Class IV employee within a period of two months from the date of copy of this order is made available to the concerned authorities.