The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of immediate consideration for Medical Invalidation in cases of Compassionate Appointment, and the obligation of the Authority to act promptly and truthfully in providing benefits to the bereaved family.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The Petitioner, as the son of Late Krishnakant Singh, who was working as Senior Operator in CRM Department of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP), Rourkela, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in T.A. No. 19 of 2015 dismissing his claim for Compassionate Appointment.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that father of the Petitioner Late Krishnakant Singh, while working as a Senior Operator in CRM Department of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP), Rourkela, suffered from Carcinoma Rectum, which was in advance stage of cancer, and due to Cardio-respiratory failure he died in harness on 16.04.2013. The father of the Petitioner, after initial treatment, being diagnosed with the said terminal illness, before his death, requested the Authority for declaration of his Medical Invalidation and Compassionate Appointment in favour of the Petitioner, vide his application dated 08.04.2013 submitted on 09.04.2013, which was immediately processed on 10.04.2013. When such request, as made vide application dated 08.04.2013, was under process, he became serious and was admitted in Ispat General Hospital (IGH), Rourkela, on 12.04.2013 and was referred to a Specialized Hospital at Kolkata, which was approved by the Director, Medical and Health Services of IGH. But the request of the father of the Petitioner for Medical Invalidation was pending. During treatment at Kolkata, the father of the Petitioner expired on 16.04.2013. After completion of rituals and finding no other alternative, the Petitioner approached the Authority for Compassionate Appointment to overcome the financial distress and hardship caused due to loss of the sole earning member of the bereaved family as well as to repay the cost of treatment and other expenses. After waiting for two months, as the burden and distress was growing, though the Petitioner submitted reminder on 06.09.2013, but no action was taken on such representation. Consequentially, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24681 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14.02.2014 with the following Orders:-

“Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction to opposite parties to appoint him under the compassionate appointment against any suitable post.

It appears from the record that the father of the Petitioner was working as operator/attendant in Cold Rolling Mill (F) under the Steel Authority of India at Rourkela Steel Plant and while continuing as such he was promoted to the post of Cluster B (Personnel). Thereafter he was promoted to the post of S.R. operative in Cluster C.P. as personal with effect from 31.12.2010. During the tenure of service period he became seriously ill and treated at Plant’s hospital and thereafter he was referred to Cancer Institute, Kolkata for treatment and he died on 16.04.2013. After the death of Petitioner’s father, the Petitioner has filed a representation on 18.07.2013 before the opposite party no.2 requesting him for compassionate employment on account of his father’s death in cancer. However, no action has been taken by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for which the Petitioner has again sent a reminder application to the authority requesting them to consider the application in its proper perspective and give him employment. The Petitioner has not yet received any reply from the opposite parties. Hence the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered by the opposite parties in view of circular dated 30.08.2011 floated by Steel Authority of India Limited.

Considering the above, this Court disposes of the writ petition with direction to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in view of the circular dated 30.08.2011 regarding the guideline for dealing with compassionate employment case