Compassionate appointment claims must be evaluated under the policies in effect at the time of the employee's demise, not subsequent schemes.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition assails the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned proceeding dated 22.09.2017 by which the request made by the petitioner's mother under letter dated 30.08.2017 for providing suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, has been rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner's father while working as an operator in the respondents’ plant, had deceased on 23.03.2010, while discharging his duties and trying to prevent Hydrogen Sulphide (H S) gas leak at the respondents plant.

4. Petitioner contends that if his father did not risk his life on the fateful day, seeking the gas leak, he having moved towards the compressor plant and switching off the device, resulted in preventing in one of the worst industrial disaster; and that by showing his bravery, the petitioner’s father had saved the Refinery plant and thousands of lives by sacrificing his own life.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that on account of the sudden death of his father who was aged about 42 years then, the family of the petitioner lost the support of the bread winner; that his mother had approached the respondents and sought for being provided with the compassionate appointment; and that inspite of petitioner's mother being highly qualified with a degree in M.Sc., and M.Phil in Chemistry, the respondents did not provide her with compassionate appointment despite the fact that petitioner’s father having sacrificed his life by preventing a major industrial disaster.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that one of the Standing Committee Member of Petroleum and Natural gas, taking note of the risk taken by the petitioner's father to prevent the gas leakage in the Refinery, thereby saving the plant and saving the lives of many people at the cost of his life, had addressed a communication dated 29.09.2011 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent to provide petitioner's mother with compassionate appointment; and that inspite of the aforesaid communication from the Standing Committee Member also, the respondents did not offer employment to the petitioner's mother on compassionate grounds, due to which, the petitioner’s family had suffered.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that on the petitioner's mother seeking compassionate appointment, the respondents claimed that it does not have a scheme/policy in place for providing employment on compassionate grounds, the request of the petitioner's mother cannot be considered; and that the respondents had only offered his mother 100 times salary of her husband as ex-gratia payment.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that while the respondents claimed that there is no scope for providing appointment on compassionate grounds at the relevant point of time, the respondents subsequently in the year 2015, provided for compassionate appointment; and that the petitioner who is the son of the deceased employee, in the meantime having completed his Engineering graduation, his mother had submitted a representation to the respondents under letter dated 30.8.2017, requesting for suitable job for him; and that the respondent