Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Gouri Devi

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6910 OF 2021

Steel Authority of India Limited …Appellant(s)

Versus

Gouri Devi …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition No.7791 of 2020 by which the

Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition

preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and

order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal passed in

T.A. No.14 of 2014 wherein the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to

consider the case of the respondent – original applicant’s second son for

appointment on compassionate ground, the Steel Authority of India Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan

Limited has preferred the present appeal.

Date: 2021.11.18 16:51:27 IST Reason: 1

2. Though served nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow

compass.

4. The deceased employee died in the year 1977. The eldest son

approached the authority for compassionate appointment. His case was

considered as per the scheme applicable at the time of death of the

deceased employee, i.e., circular dated 01.09.1975 and his application

for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected.

4.1 After a period of more than 18 years of the death of her husband,

the widow of the deceased employee filed a Writ Petition being OJC

No.783 of 1996 before the High Court with prayer to appoint her second

son on compassionate ground.

4.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the writ petition, the

order dated 17.10.1977 rejecting the application for appointment of the

eldest son on compassionate ground, was not under challenge. By the

order of the High Court, the writ petition was transferred to the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which was registered as T.A. No.14 of

2014. By the judgment and order dated 28.11.2019, the learned

Tribunal disposed of T.A. No.14 of 2014 and directed the appellant to re- 2 consider the case of Ramesh Chandra Khuntia, second son of the

deceased in accordance with the scheme of compassionate

employment. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High

Court being Writ Petition No. 7791 of 2020 has been dismissed by the

Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.

4.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the Steel Authority of India Limited

has preferred the present appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant and from the facts narrated hereinabove, it emerges that the

deceased employee died in the year 1977 and the second application for

appointment on compassionate ground by the widow to appoint her

second son was filed in the year 1996, i.e., after a period of 18 years of

the date of the death of the deceased employee.

5.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year 1977, the

eldest son made an application for appointment on compassionate

ground, which was rejected in the year 1977 and the same has attained

finality. Despite the above fact, second time the application was filed in

the year 1996 now to appoint the second son, which was after a period

of 18 years. Despite the fact that there was a delay of 18 years in 3 making the second application, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal still

directed the appellant to re-consider the case and to appoint the second

son on compassionate ground, which has been confirmed by the High

Court by the impugned judgment and order. Apart from the fact that in

the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench has not at all given

any specific independent findings, it can be seen that except narrating

the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, there is no further

discussion at all on merits and there is no discussion at all on delay and

laches. Be that it may, even otherwise, on merits also, the respondent

shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the

ground of delay and laches.

5.2 As held by this Court in the case of Punjab State Power

Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774

delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim

for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate

amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there

was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court

observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependent

of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on

compassionate ground.

4 5.3 In the case of State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir

(2006) 5 SCC 766, this Court had occasion to consider the delay and

laches in case of appointment on compassionate ground. By dismissing

the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which was made

after a period of four and a half years of death of the deceased

employee, it was held that appointment on compassionate ground is an

exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be

made on the basis of competitive merits. It is further observed that once

it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family

survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make

appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of

several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, applying

the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and considering the fact that

in the present case the second application was made after a period of 18

years, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and

that of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the appellant to

re-consider the case of the second son of the respondent is

unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and

accordingly the same are hereby quashed and set aside. It is observed

and held that the second son of the respondent shall not be entitled to

the appointment on compassionate ground as observed and held by the 5 learned Central Administrative Tribunal confirmed by the Division Bench

of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Present appeal

is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there

is no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 18, 2021. [SANJIV KHANNA]

6