Appointment on compassionate grounds precludes further claims for employment on the same grounds.

Headnote:
Compassionate Grounds - Employment - The court held that the widow of a deceased employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim further employment for her brother-in-law on the basis of the death of the employee in harness.
Fact of the Case:

The widow of a deceased employee was appointed on compassionate grounds and later promoted. She filed a writ petition for the appointment of her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds, which was allowed by the High Court but dismissed in a review petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the brother-in-law was not a dependant of the deceased employee and since the widow was already appointed and continuing in service on compassionate grounds, further employment cannot be claimed on the basis of the employee's death.
Issues: The issue was whether the brother-in-law could claim employment on compassionate grounds based on the death of the employee in harness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the widow's appointment on compassionate grounds precluded the brother-in-law from claiming further employment on the same grounds.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the orders of the High Court were set aside, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated 22-2-1994 passed in Civil Review Application No. 17 of 1993 in CR No. 97 of 1991 of the High Court of Gauhati at its Bench at Imphal. One, A. Raghumani Singh, was appointed in the service of Manipur State and he died in harness. Therefore, his widow Smt Arambam Ongbi Memcha Devi, was appointed as LDC on 1-1-1974 on compassionate grounds and she was promoted as UDC on 13-10-1981. In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to appoint her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 97 of 1991, against which a review petition was filed. As stated earlier, the review petition was also dismissed. Thus, these two appeals by special leave. Though time was taken for filing counter by the respondent, no counter has been filed.

3. The brother is not a dependant of the deceased employee who died in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already been appointed and she has been continuing in service they cannot claim further employment on the basis of the death of the employee in harness. The High Court was, therefore, not correct.

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances no costs.

For Citation : (1995) 4 SCC 210

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis