THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6820 of 2012 DATE:20.10.2014 Between:
Bonasi Sunil … Petitioner And The Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, Kothagudem, Khammam District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6820 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
The brief facts necessary for disposing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:
The father of the petitioner by name B. Odelu was working as a Center-Boy in the respondent Company. He died on 31.03.1991 in harness, while in service. The petitioner’s mother made a representation to the respondent Company on 04.06.1991 for dependent employment on compassionate grounds. In the meanwhile, there was a dispute with regard to the death benefits of the deceased employee. Claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, one Lakshmi sought to grant the death benefits of the deceased employee to her and her children, while the petitioner’s mother also claimed the death benefits claiming to be the wife of the deceased employee. The dispute led to filing of Original Suit No.60 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem by Smt. Lakshmi. She claimed to be the legally wedded wife and her children to be the legitimate children of the deceased employee. The suit was decreed holding that Lakshmi is the first wife and the petitioner’s mother is the second wife of the deceased employee. The trial Court recorded a categorical finding that since the deceased employee married the petitioner’s mother during the subsistence of first marriage with Lakshmi, the petitioner’s mother cannot be considered to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Challenging the same, the petitioner’s mother preferred an appeal in A.S.No.427 of 1999 before this Court and the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Against the said judgment, the petitioner’s mother preferred second appeal, which was also dismissed. Thus, ultimately, the finding that the marriage of the petitioner’s mother with the deceased employee is not legal, has attained finality. However, considering the children of the second wife to be the legitimate children of the deceased employee, some portion of the death benefits were given to them, though an application made by the petitioner’s mother as well as the appeal was rejected on the ground that the children born to the second wife of the deceased employee are not entitled for compassionate appointment, as per the scheme evolved by the respondent Company.
Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Company.
This writ petition was filed in the year 2012, when the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on 03.11.2009. In Government of A.P., Vs. N. Prabhudas
[1]
, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the concept of appointment on compassionate grounds is exclusively meant for the sustenance of the immediate family members of the deceased, by afflux of time i.e., more than 22 years, the said purpose has lost, and the conduct of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal after a long lapse of five years for non-consideration of his earlier representation adds strength for rejection of his claim for appointment and accordingly held that the case of the applicant is hit by principles of laches and set aside the impugned order.
In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others the Supreme Court had categorically held as follows:
“Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
[2]
, In the instant case, as per the decree passed by the civil Court, which became final in the second appeal, the petitioner’s mother is not the legally wedded wife and therefore the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent Company also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not eligible for compassionate appointment, as per the Scheme evolved by the Company.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition to issue any positive direction to the respondent Company to provide compassionate employment to the petitioner.
Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
R. KANTHA RAO, J 20th October, 2014 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.6820 of 2012 (Dismissed)
20th October, 2014 cbs
[1] 2008(4) ALD 88 (DB)
[2] (1994) 4 SCC 138