SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 892

2011 (5) ALLMR 346
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.M. KHANWILKAR & MRIDULA BHATKAR
Aparna Narendra Zambre & Another
Versus
Assistant Superintendent Engineer & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 1284 OF 2011
Decided on: 01-08-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:A.M. Kulkarni with Akshay Shinde, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R2 & R3, A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 309-Appointment-On compassionate ground-Deceased, employee, only earning member of family died in harness-Hardship and distress caused to family due to sudden demise of employee-Family pension received by widow or other eligible family members of deceased, can be no basis to deny them benefit of appointment on compassionate ground-Such concession in addition to relief of Family Pension.-Suffice it to observe that the fact that Family Pension is being received by the widow or other eligible family members of the deceased employee can be no basis to deny them the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. That concession is in addition to the relief of Family Pension, which is, essentially, intended to meet the immediate financial hardship suffered by the members of the family due to the sudden demise of the deceased employee. Indeed, after appointment on compassionate ground, whether the Family Pension should be paid is matter to be governed by the extant Rules. The very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee, who died in harness, is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Providing Family Pension may be lessening the financial hardships, but not completely relieving the family members of the deceased employee of financial hardship and distress caused due to his sudden demise, resulting in loss of his regular salary, on which the entire family was dependent.

       Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 309-Service jurisprudence-Required essential qualification-Qualification of candidate-To be examined with reference to date of making application-And not with reference to date of selection. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168; 2007 (4) SCC 54-Relied on.-Court agrees with the petitioners that there are authorities of the Apex Court, on Service Jurisprudence, in abundance, taking the view that the required qualification of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of making application and not with reference to the date of selection. The Apex Court has consistently held that, in the absence of a fixed dated indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications, with reference to which, the requisite qualification should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the applications will be the last date for making the applications. [See Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54].

Judgment :

This petition is filed by the heirs and family members of deceased Mohan Kulkarni, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in Mhaishal Pump House No. 2, who died in harness on 8th September, 2003, leaving behind petitioner No. 2 as his widow and two daughters. Petitioner No. 1 is one of the daughters of deceased Mohan. At the relevant time, she was unmarried. The other daughter was already married in November, 2002, before the said Mohan Kulkarni died in harness.

2. After the death of Mohan, his widow, petitioner No. 2 made an application on 29th July, 2004 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Mhaishal Pump House No. 2 at Sangli, requesting to appoint her unmarried daughter, petitioner No.1, to the post of Junior Clerk or any other suitable post on compassionate ground. She further stated that she has no objection if petitioner No.1, who was her unmarried daughter, were to be given such appointment. The said proposal was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa Sinchan Project Board at Sangli by the Executive Engineer on 27th August, 2004. On 10th September, 2004, respondent No. 1 forwarded the said application to the Collector, Sangli, for necessary action. The name of petitioner No. 1 came to be included in the Wait List of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground prepared by the Collector as well as the Department. By letter dated 10th December, 2007, respondent No. 1 informed petitioner No. 1 that her name was included in the Wait List prepared by the Office of the Collector and was at Serial No. 146 and at Serial No. 10 in the Wait List prepared by the Department some time in August, 2005. Petitioner No. 1 was also informed to remain present in his office on 17th December, 2007 with relevant documents. It is the case of the petitioners that necessary documents were produced by the petitioners. The petitioners, once again, received a communication dated 2nd June, 2009, calling upon them to remain present in the office with the relevant documents. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 went to the office of the respondents on 3rd June, 2009, and, again, on 5th June, 2009. On 8th June, 2009, the Collector called upon respondent No. 1 to give para-wise remarks on the proposal of petitioner No. 1 and to submit a detailed report. Respondent No. 1, once again, confirmed the position that name of petitioner No. 1 is included in the Wait List prepared prior to 22nd August, 2005. Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to submit undertaking in the prescribed format and to furnish necessary information. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 submitted the undertaking / affidavit on 31st July, 2009 as per the requirements specified in the written communication received by her dated 13th July, 2009. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to receive communication from the Executive Engineer dated 10th November, 2010. It is mentioned therein that petitioner No. 2, being widow, was getting monthly pension, and, in the view of the Department, she was financially sound and was not dependent on petitioner No. 1. Then, referring to Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994, it was stated that petitioner No.1 was ineligible to be appointed on compassionate ground, being married daughter of the deceased employee. As per the said Government Resolution, besides the other family members mentioned therein, only an unmarried daughter is eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. This decision is challenged in the present petition.

3. The petitioners not only pray for quashing and setting aside of the said decision, but also pray for direction against the respondents to forthwith appoint petitioner No. 1 to a suitable post with effect from 29th July, 2004, along with back wages and consequential benefits.

4. This petition is opposed by the Department. The learned A.G.P. has adopted the reasons stated in the impugned communication dated 10th November, 2010, and has contended that the said view is consis











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top