Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 69
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Vinay Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Managing Director, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.454 of 2020
Decided On : 17-05-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sidhartha Jain, learned counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
Acceptance of a lump sum payment under the Employment Assistance Scheme extinguishes the right to seek compassionate appointment.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Employment Assistance Scheme - Employment Assistance Scheme, 1987 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Employment Assistance Scheme, emphasizing that acceptance of a lump sum payment by the spouse absolves the employer of any obligation to provide compassionate employment, influencing the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment after his mother accepted a lump sum payment following the death of his father, an employee of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acceptance of the lump sum payment by the petitioner's mother extinguished any right to compassionate appointment, and the petition was also barred by delay.
Issues: Whether the acceptance of a lump sum payment by the spouse of a deceased employee precludes the right to seek compassionate appointment for their child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Employment Assistance Scheme clearly states that acceptance of a lump sum payment absolves the employer of any obligation to provide compassionate employment, which was applicable in this case.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 23.01.2019, annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.1, whereby the application of petitioner’s mother-Smt. Rajkumari Yadav for seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been rejected and for other ancillary reliefs.
3. The case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was working as Mali in the regular establishment with the respondents-ONGC. He expired unfortunately on 19.04.1989 leaving behind petitioner and his widow-Smt. Rajkumari Yadav. Petitioner’s mother moved an application on 06.12.1989 seeking compassionate appointment. The respondent-ONGC at the relevant time was governed by the Employment Assistance Scheme dated 20.07.1987, annexed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit. According to Clause 2.1, a lump sum consideration would be paid to the spouse or dependent of the deceased employee and according to Clause 2.2, if above assistance has been given or received by the dependent or spouse of the deceased employee, the respondent-ONGC would be absolved of any obligation to provide employment on compassionate ground to the spouse or dependent of the deceased employee under the aforesaid Scheme.
4. Clauses 2 to 2.2 of the Employment Assistance Scheme are quoted hereunder:-
“2. Assistance:
In the event of death during service in the Commission or permanent total disability while on duty in service of the Commission, the Commission may, for rehabilitation of the family of such employee, who leaves his family in Indigency and acute financial distress, make a lump sum payment to the following assistance :-
| Category of Employees | Admissibility of lump sum amount on the basis of number of years of service left to be rendered in the Commission by deceased employee and where employment is not provided to the dependent. | ||
|
| Below 10 years | From 10 years to 20 Years | Above 20 years |
| Class IV | 30,000/- | 25,000/- | 20,000/- |
| Class III | 45,000/- | 37000/- | 30,000/- |
| E.O. | 60,000/- | 50,000/- | 45,000/- |
| E.1 to E.4 | 90,000/- | 70,000/- | 55,000/- |
| E.5 & above | 1,20,000/- | 1,00,000/- | 80,000/- |
2.1. The lump sum consideration shall be decided at the head-quarters of the Commission. The Lump sum payment would be made by the Finance & Accounts Officer, who was normally disbursing pay and allowances to the deceased employee during his life time.
2.2. The above assistance will also completely absolve the Commission of any obligation to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the spouse or dependent of the employee, under the existing scheme.”
5. There is no dispute to this fact that owing to the death of employee of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner (spouse) has accepted the amount of Rs.20,000/- as admissible to the deceased employee as per the chart annexed in Clause 2 of the aforesaid Scheme. Accordingly, all obligations of the respondent-ONGC for giving compassionate appointment have come to an end by accepting that amount by the spouse of the deceased employee.
6. According to the petitioner, mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 28.12.2018 to the respondent through Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India to give compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased employee in place of his spouse-Rajkumari Yadav.
7. It transpires that perhaps that application for seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner reached to the office of the respondent-ONGC and the respondent-ONGC vide order dated 23.01.2019 rejected that application. The reasons which have been assigned in the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner moved through her mother was that the spouse of the deceased employee had already received one time lump sum settlement amount in the year 1990, therefore, according to that Scheme, petitioner’s mother h
