IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment under the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme is not available to married children, as they are not considered dependents.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) That the Hon’ble High Court please to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate relief, order or direction to release the Gratuity, Pension, Provident Fund and other retiral benefit with 9% rate of interest.

(B) Lordship be please to issue the order or direction to reconsidered the Annexure B i.e. application for compassionate appointment.

(C) Lordships be quashed and set aside annexure G.

(D) Lordship be issued the order to delete the Para stated that “Married wards not entitled compassionate appointment.” from the Superannuation benefit fund scheme (Option R3).

(E) For such other relief that may be deemed fit and proper.

(F) Cost of suit may be awarded.”

2. Heard Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the respondents.

3. The present petition is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased – Shri Chandubhai Parmar, who expired on 04.10.2013, Employee No.58232, Designation : Instrument Master, while working at Gujarat Refinery under the respondents herein. The death certificate of the deceased – Shri Chandubhai Parmar is duly produced at Annexure – A. The deceased – Shri Chandubhai Parmar expired during the course of service and in view thereof, the petitioner No.2 applied for appointment on compassionate ground by preferring an application in December, 2013 duly produced at Annexure – B, page 13.

3.1 The respondent communicated with the petitioner No.1 herein by communication dated 31.10.2013 with respect to the exercise of option under the SABF Scheme; to select the option either R1 or R3, duly produced at Annexure – C, page 14. The petitioner again made a communication on 11.11.2013 choosing the option R3, duly produced at Annexure – D, page 16. The option form dated 03.12.2013 is also produced at Annexure – E, page 17. The said option form is for pensionery benefits and other benefits.

3.2 The respondent by communication dated 12.12.2013 duly produced at Annexure – F, page 23, asked for the information and other documents. The respondent by impugned communication dated 26.12.2013, which is duly produced at Annexure – G, page 24, rejected the request of the petitioners wherein, upon scrutiny of the document, it is stated that the option R3 under the SABF Scheme is available to unmarried son/daughter only and the petitioner No.2 was married and in view thereof, the option R3 of the SABF Scheme was not extended to the petitioner. The aforesaid communication has given rise to the filing of the present petition with the reliefs, as referred above.

4. Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner No.2 herein is entitled to the option R3 of the SABF Scheme. Placing reliance on the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on 05.09.2016 which includes the ‘Married Son’. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the respondents herein being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 05.09.2016 and in view thereof, the petitioner No.2 herein is entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds under the SABF Scheme. Reliance is placed on the said Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2016 duly produced at page 187. Reliance is also placed on the RTI information procured by the petitioners wherein, in the said information, it is provided that some of the persons are extended the benefit of the Scheme. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the respondent authority has discriminated the petitioner by granting compassionate appointment to identically placed persons whereas, the petitioner No.2 is not extended the benefit of the same.

4.1 Mr. R.G. Chaudhary, learned advocate placed reliance on the ratio laid down in case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported i