Allowed

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Adopted

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2015SAW/1004/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal against Single Bench order granting compassionate appointment to an adopted son. DB Bench held appointment barred due to four-year delay beyond the statutory ninety-day limit, as difficulty to family no longer existed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing writ petition is set aside. Writ petition against respondent is dismissed.

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

J U D G M E N T

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1004/2014

¶5

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar

¶6

Date of Judgment :: 8^th April, 2015

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶9

Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the appellants. Mr. M.M.Dhera, for the respondent.

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

While serving appellant Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur as Helper Grade-I Shri Babulal died on 29.3.2008. Prior to that his wife Smt. Meera Devi died on 5.10.2006. The respondent petitioner claiming himself as adopted son of Shri Babulal submitted an application on 18.1.2012 to the authority competent for appointment on compassionate grounds as per provisions of “The Compassionate Appointments of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 2001” (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2001'). The application aforesaid was forwarded to the Department of Personnel of the appellant corporation by the Superintending Engineer (O & M), Sirohi under a letter dated 14.2.2012. The Personal Officer (O & M) by a letter dated 2.3.2012, after considering the application returned the case to the Superintending Engineer (O & M), Sirohi with following observations :-

¶12

-2-

¶13

“Hereby enclosed returning the full case as received, it is observed that this does not appear a fit and proper case for the following reasons :-

¶14

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDANTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RULES, 2001 – rule 2 c does not accept this applicant Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o SH. Harji Ram as dependant of late Sh. Babu Lal S/O Prabhuji Bhat, H-I.

¶15

Applicant acclaiming as successor & heir but no certified copy of adoption deed or will written by deceased employee Sh. Mangilal s/o Alfuji, H-II during his life time has been enclosed.

¶16

Deceased employee Sh. Babu Lal S/O Prabhuji Bhat was expired on 29.03.2008 whereas his wife Smt. Meera ben reported dead (No date of death or proof attached) and no any birth child/ heir reported to exist. In such case, nobody covered in definition of 'family' or 'dependant' of deceased employee remains. Therefore, there is no any liability of deceased employee remains to bear by Nigam, or for which Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o SH. Harji Ram has to sacrifice his efforts/ assets.

¶17

Decision/ order dtd. 29.04.11 of Hon'ble A.D.J., Abu Road District Sirohi in Diwani vividh case no.11/2008 Manoj Vs All concern etc. declare successor for financial purpose only and not verdict his right for preferential appointment in Nigam service in consonance with COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDANTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RULES, 2001.

¶18

No copy of ration card, GPF nomination or any other document etc. showing Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o

¶19

-3-

¶20

SH. Harji Ram as family member of deceased employee Sh. Babu Lal S/O Prabhuji Bhat, H-I has been enclosed.

¶21

However, the complete case may submitted to the Dy. Director Personnel (H.Q.), Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur through your good office along with above observations for further needful action at Nigam level.”

¶22

After getting the case returned the Assistant Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Abu Road by letter dated 26.3.2012 informed the petitioner that the Succession Certificate submitted by him is not pertaining to any right for employment, hence no action on that basis can be taken. Suffice to mention here that after death of Shri Babulal the respondent petitioner obtained a Succession Certificate from the court of Additional District Judge, Sirohi to have certain post death monetary benefits. The Additional District Judge granted the Succession Certificate by relying upon the affidavit submitted by Shri Ravindra and Motilal residents of village Mawal, Tehsil Abu Road and Pindwara respectively. The sole discussion made by Additional District Judge while issuing Succession Certificate reads as under:-

¶23

“08प�र� मन�ज न� अपन� म�ख� ब��न क� शपरपत म� प�र�न�पत क� अभ�करन� क� द�हर�त� ह�ए प�ष� क ह! और म#तक ब�ब$ल�ल एव' म(र� क� कमश: द�ह�नत ददन�'क 29.03.2008 एव' 05.10.2006 क� ह�न� पदश�-ए तर� पदश�-2 ए स� पम�ण.त ह!। म#तक ब�ब$ल�ल क� स1�1 ब2क ऑफ ब(क�न�र एण6 ज�प�र श�ख�-आब$र�6 म� ख�त� स'ख�� 5104541851 (बचत ख�त�) एव' म#तक� म(र� क� सह�र� इ'ड6�� म� 14671600446 ख�त� स'ख�� स'ध�ररत ह�न� और उक दसत�व�ज कमश: पदश�-3 ए एव' पदश�-4 ए ह�न� अभ�ल�ख स� पम�ण.त ह!। इसक�

¶24

-4-

¶25

अल�व� अप�र� स'ख�� प@च क ओर स� म#तक ब�ब$ल�ल क� ज(प(एफ ख�त� स'ख��-11727 क फ�1�पतत प�श क ग�( ह2 जजसक� अन�स�र कल�जज'ग ब!ल�स 72285/- रप�� दश� � � ग�� ह!।

¶26

09प(.6. 2 रषवनद तनव�स( म�वल तहस(ल आब$र�6 तर� प(.6. 3 म�त(ल�ल तनव�स( षपण6व�6� न� सव�' क� शपर पर दद�� ग�� ब��न म� प�र� क ज�तत/सम�द�� क� ह�न�, म#तक ब�ब$ल�ल व म(र� क� क�ई सनत�न नहH' ह�न�, म#तक ब�ब$ल�ल व म(र� द�र� अपन� ज(वन क�ल म� अपन� ��ई हरज(र�म क� प�त/प�त� मन�ज क� स�म�जजक रHतत-ररव�ज स� ग�द दद�� ज�न� और ग�द ल�न� क रसम क� दJर�न सव�' क� उपजसरत ह�न� करन कक�� ह!।”

¶27

After a lapse of about nine months from the date of obtaining Succession Certificate the respondent petitioner submitted the application for having appointment on compassionate grounds and that was dealt with by the authorities concerned as per the facts mentioned above.

¶28

The respondent petitioner, on being denied appointment, approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned dated 3.4.2014. Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition, observed that the petitioner obtained a certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act by representing himself as an adopted son of Late Shri Babulal, therefore, is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶29

In appeal, while questioning correctness of the judgment impugned it is argued that as per Rules of 2001 an application for having appointment on compassionate grounds should have been submitted by the respondent petitioner within a period of ninety days, but in the instant matter

¶30

-5-

¶31

such an application was filed after a lapse of about four years. It is also submitted that the Succession Certificate, on which respondent petitioner relies, relates to certain monetary benefits and, therefore, that could have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of granting appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶32

While defending the judgment it is stated that the respondent petitioner first obtained a Succession Certificate and only after having that, he submitted application for appointment, as such the limitation of ninety days as given under the Rules of 2001 is not applicable in the instant matter. It is also stated that the Succession Certificate was claimed by the respondent petitioner being adopted son of Late Shri Babulal, therefore, on basis of that he can claim all rights of inheritance including appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶33

Heard learned counsels.

¶34

The appointment on compassionate grounds is a deviation from regular mode of recruitment with a view to extend a hand of help to the dependants of a government servant who dies while in service. The intention behind such appointments is to console the bereaved family facing difficulty due to death of the sole bread earner. The adversary conditions that crop up due to death of sole bread earner are required to be met on emergent basis and, therefore, under the Rules of 2001 a definite period is prescribed to claim such appointment and no person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds after a long

¶35

-6-

¶36

delay from the date of death of the sole bread earner. The difficulty faced by the family after the death of the bread winner would have ceased after a lapse of time and that is why rule stipulates that approach should be made within ninety days of death of employee.

¶37

On examining the case of the respondent petitioner we find that Shri Babulal died in the month of March, 2008 and at the first instance claim for appointment was made in the year 2012 i.e. after a lapse of about four years. The respondent petitioner has made an effort to explain the delay caused in the matter by placing reliance upon the fact that it took time to obtain Succession Certificate, but that is of no consequence in the instant matter as this certificate was obtained by him in the month of April, 2011 and no effort was made by him for seeking appointment for a period of more than eight months even subsequent thereto. We are of considered opinion that after a lapse of about four years the difficulty existing in the month of March, 2008 would have not been existing. Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and, therefore, writ petition in our opinion was wrongly accepted.

¶38

For the reasons given above the appeal deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 3.4.2014 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent petitioner is dismissed.

¶39

(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶40

Mathuria.KK/PS

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Adopted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Adopted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Kheta Ram Meena Vs the Commandant, 12 Bn.Rac I.R. and Ors.

M/S. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Shesha Ram Vs Alcobex Metals Ltd. and Anr.

The Assi. Commissioner, Vs State and Anr.

Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs State and Ors.