Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 2095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Manju Devi - Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5538 of 2015
Decided On : 14-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Vijay Datt Gahtori, Ashok Kumar Arya and Deepak Pandey, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Raj Birbal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to seek compassionate employment is subject to the prevailing scheme at the time of application, and having received substantial benefits under a different scheme, the petitioner was not entitled to seek compassionate employment under the withdrawn scheme.

Headnote:
Compassionate Employment - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd - Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A - The relevant acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court include: HPCL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, Constitution of India Article 14 and Article 21. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the HPCL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme and the principles of compassionate employment. The court found that the petitioner had already received substantial benefits under the scheme and therefore dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, wife of a deceased employee, sought compassionate employment for her son from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The corporation had withdrawn the scheme for compassionate appointment in 2004 and the petitioner had already received substantial benefits under a different scheme.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had already received substantial benefits under the scheme and therefore dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to seek compassionate employment for her son under a scheme that had been withdrawn by the respondent corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having received substantial benefits under a different scheme, was not entitled to seek compassionate employment under the withdrawn scheme.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for being devoid of any merit.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"A) direct the Respondent Corporation for consideration of the case of the son of the Petitioner, being dependant of the deceased employee, in terms of the binding settlement dated 13.4.1983 and Employees Superannuation Benefit Scheme of the Respondent Corporation as applicable on the date of death of the Husband of the Petitioner i.e. 23.4.2008 and on the date of submitting option for employment to the son of the Petitioner i.e. on 5.5.2008,and

B) to quash the communication dated 22.7.2008 and 29.6.2012 made by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner and

C) direct the Respondent Corporation to grant pension to the Petitioner at the rate of 42.5 % of the Last Drawn Salary..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

Petitioner is the wife of Sh. Mahinder Paswan, who was an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division and expired on 5th April 2008, while in service due to a Road accident.

On 19th April 2008, the wife of deceased, applied for compassionate appointment of her son Ravinder Paswan.

On 5th May 2008, the Petitioner gave an option letter to the Respondent Corporation, wherein out of three options available, she took an option under Rule 7(b) (ii)/8A of the "Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme" (hereinafter `the Scheme') wherein she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.

Vide letter dated 22nd July 2008, the Respondent Corporation informed the Petitioner that since 1998, they have not been offering employment to dependants of any of the deceased employees for compassionate employment.

On 9th September 2008, the Respondent Corporation issued a letter to the petitioner advising her to change her Scheme Option from 7(b) (ii)/8A to either 7(a) or 7 (b)(i).

On 29th June 2012, the Respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that the scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependant of the employee, in the event of death of his service has been withdrawn. Therefore, her request for compassionate appointment to her son could not be acceded to.

On 29th November 2013, the Petitioner again made a representation to the Respondent Corporation for providing her son compassionate appointment in accordance with option taken by her.

On 11th December 2013, the Respondent Corporation in their reply informed the petitioner that she was given hundred percent of last drawn salary as per the option taken by her under the Scheme and hence, her son is not entitled to the benefit for the compassionate employment.

The petitioner is now before this court praying that her son's case may be considered for compassionate employment by the Respondent Corporation.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Respondent Corporation accepted the option taken by the petitioner and has accordingly been paying last drawn salary of her deceased husband to the petitioner till 31st January 2014. However, despite having accepted the option under Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the Scheme, the Respondent Corporation has failed to give appointment to the petitioner's son as envisaged under the aforesaid Rules.

4. It is submitted that Respondent Corporation is bound by Clause 24 of the settlement made between the corporation and its workmen represented by the unions, wherein the `employment of workmen dependents' is mentioned and the petitioner's case falls within the ambit of said Clause.

5. It is submitted that the Respondent contrary to the written rules of the Scheme on the date of death, i.e. 5th April 2008, or the date of nomination for employment of petitioner's son, i.e. 20th May 2008, denied the employment to the son of the Petitioner after withholding, from April 2008 to 28th February 2014, statutory benefits of gross amount of