Chief Engineer (Naval Works) vs A.P. Asha

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5353 OF 2009

CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS) & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

A.P. ASHA ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the validity

of the judgment dated 18th May, 2005, delivered by

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the

appellants have been directed to consider the case

of the respondent for appointment to a suitable

post on compassionate ground as the husband of the

respondent had died in harness.

Signature Not Verified

3. After the death of her husband in the year Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.10.27 17:11:00 IST Reason: 1999, the respondent made a request to the

1 appellants/ employers to consider her case for

appointment on compassionate ground.

4. There is a policy for making an appointment

on compassionate grounds and as per the said

policy, according to the appellants, the

claimants, who are more deserving for appointment

on compassionate grounds, are given appointment

and therefore, though the case of the respondent

was considered, she could not be appointed as

there were claimants who were more needy than the

respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent

had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

and the Tribunal directed the appellants to again

consider the case of the respondent for

appointment on compassionate ground. Being

aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the

appellants had filed a writ petition before the

High Court, which has been dismissed and

therefore, this appeal.

5. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the

respondent was not given appointment on

2 compassionate ground as per the policy of the

appellants because, as per the policy, more

deserving candidates were available for giving

appointment on the compassionate ground. In the

circumstances, according to the appellants, the

direction was not justifiable as the case of the

respondent had already been considered thrice but

every time the persons who were more deserving

were appointed on compassionate ground.

6. In our opinion, the respondent has no right

to be appointed on compassionate ground on the

death of her husband if there is somebody more

needy than the respondent. It is clear from the

record that the policy of the appellants has been

strictly adhered to in the matter of giving

appointment on compassionate ground.

7. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the

Tribunal was not right in giving the direction to

the appellants to consider the case of the

respondent again and again, especially when the

case of the respondent had been duly considered

3 and had been rejected, in view of the fact that

more deserving claimants were available at the

relevant time. We are, therefore, of the view that

the High Court committed an error by upholding the

order of the Tribunal.

8. The impugned judgment passed by the High

Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed with

no order as to costs.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;

15th October, 2015.

4 ITEM NO.110 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s).5353/2009

CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS) & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

A.P. ASHA Respondent(s)

Date : 15/10/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Appellant(s) Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv.

Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv.

For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra,Adv.(Not present)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Non-reportable judgment.

(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Rgistrar

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

5