LexMAHARANI DEVI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 530 " Y~ A MAHARANI DEVI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3581 of 2008) B MAY 15, 2009 [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ;._ + Service law - Compassionate appointment - Employee dying iss.ueless - Claim of compassionate appointment by c widow in favour of near relative bn basis of circular dated 16.05.1991 - However, amendment to the circular deleting the provision providing for compassionate appointment to -..-. near relative and circular not made retrospective - Issue regarding relevant date for consideration, date of death of ,... D employee or date of filing representation-when was the amended circular enforced, not considered by High Court - "j_ Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Circular No. E(NG)111/88/RC-111 dated 16.05.1991; RBE 102191. E Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao 1994 (1) SCC 192; Project Uccha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State 2001 (1) PLJR 287; Balbir Kaur and Ors. v. Steel ~ Authority of India AIR 2000 SC 1906; Chairman Railway r Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors. 1997 (6) .... F sec 623, referred to. State Bank of lnc/ia and Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur 2007 (9) SCC 571, distinguished. Case Law Reference: G 1994 -(1) sec 192 Referred to. Para 4 _, ... 2001 (1) PLJR 287 Referred to. Para 6 ,..._ I J AIR 2000 SC 1906 Referred to. Para 7 H 530 MAHARANI DEVI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 531 #---~ ·> 1997 (6) sec 623 Referred to. Para 12 A 2001 (9) sec s11 Distinguished. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3581 of 2009. B From the Judgment & Order dated 15.2.2005 of the High ~ Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Petition No. 2213 of ~ 2005. Shweta Garg for the Appellant. c Haris_h Chandra, Sadhan Sandhu and AK. Sharma D.S. Mahra for the Respondents . ...: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .... V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted . D .:t 2; Appellant No.1 is the widow of one Shri Kailash Singh who was working as Storeman under the Eastern Railways, BiharWhile the appellant No.2 is his nephew. The said Kailash Singh expired on 03.12.1995. He was a permanent employee E of the Eastern Railways, now the East Central Railways. He died issueless. As per tile claim of the appellants, appellant ,. No.1 who is a helpless widow, after the death of her husband, ~ the application· came to be submitted on 05.12.1995 for ... compassionate appointment before the Divisional Railway F Manager, Danapur (second respondent) in favour of the second appellant since the late Kailash Singh died issueless and in case of the employee dying issueless his near relative could get the compassionate appointment on the basis of a circular No. E(NG)111/88/RC-111 dated .16.05.1991; RBE 102/91. G ,,,.. f. .. 3. Unfortunately for her, on 13.12.1995, the Railway Board, • · by its order, took a policy decision and introduced an amendment to the above mentioned C.frcular dated 16.05.1991 deleting the provision of providing compassionate appointment H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2009] 9 S.C.R. .... to the near relative. This decision was circulated by a Circular I -,. A c- ' dated 22.12.1995. It must be added here that the Circular was not retrospective. 4. Since the application made by her was not responded B to, another representation was made on 29.02.1996 for compassionate appointment for the second appellant. By order dated 19.03.1997, this application came to be rejected without ""- ,,, giving any reasons. One more representation was made + through Shri Sushil Kumar Modi, Leader of the Opposition in c Bihar Assembly by his letter No. 1424 dated 06.10.1999 addressed to the- Minister of State for Railways. However, even he was informed that there was no provision to employ near relative on compassionate ground and accordingly the competent officer had rejected her representation. The v D appellants, therefore, filed an original application before the iii- Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ~· (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). It was pointed out that there '1 .... was a communication by the Railway Boara bearing No. E(NG) 11/88-.RC-1/1 d~ted 12.02.1990 which provided that if an er:nployee dies in harness leaving a widow without children, the E appointment of a near relative could be considered in case of hardship and on merits of each case. Relying on this circular th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.