URMILA DEVI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by letter dated 09th May 2006 issued by the Assistant Manager (Pers/TA) as contained in annexure -9 to this writ application.

(3.) RESPONDENTS , on the other hand, have brought on record the scheme which is annexed as annexure -A to the supplementary counter affidavit which also provides for eligibility criteria for being considered under the said scheme. The scheme is labelled as "Scheme for Substitution of Employment for Employees suffering from Dreaded Diseases". The eligibility criteria provides that only one direct dependent (adult male, child or young male spouse) of the employee suffering from the disease will be considered for the substitution normally. However, in exceptional situation where no male dependent is available in the family, a young female dependent may be considered at the discretion of the management and subject to suitability for the post available for substitution. The dreaded diseases are indicated such as like Cancer, Aids, total Renal Failure or total paralysis resulting in such crippling of body movement with no chances of revival. The scheme provides that it shall remain in force until further orders and has been issued on 18th August 1997. Annexure -B is another Circular dated 20th February 2010 which provides for guidelines and procedure for dealing with compassionate cases to bring in uniformity in dealing with compassionate cases under the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited. Under the scheme of 2010, the coverage is extended in case of death or permanent total disablement due to accident arising out of and in course of employment. It further provides coverage in case of an employee declared incapable to perform normal duty due to his / her physical / mental incapacity due to suffering from chronic debilitating diseases. It is the case of the respondents that the scheme of 1997 invoked at the time when the claim of the petitioner was raised in December 2002 and 2003, there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment on the death of the employee in harness. It is their specific case that the scheme in vogue in 1997 only provides for substitution of the employee by his direct dependent on his being declared to be suffering from either of the dreaded diseases enumerated in the scheme itself. However, admittedly, the husband of the petitioner had made no such application during his lifetime. In that view of the matter, respondent justified the issuance of the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of being not covered under the scheme in vogue. Respondents have relied upon paragraphs -15 & 20 of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar versus Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209 which is quoted herein below: