STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED versus GOURI DEVI

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
v.
GOURI DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 6910 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Compassionate appointment – Delay and laches
in case of appointment on compassionate ground – Deceased
employee died in the year 1977 – Application for compassionate
appointment by eldest son was rejected – Despite that after a period
of 18 years of the date of the death of the deceased employee,
application by widow of the deceased employee to appoint her
second son on compassionate ground – Tribunal directed the
appellant to re-consider the case and to appoint the second son on
compassionate ground, which order was confirmed by the High
Court by impugned judgment – Appeal by employer – Held: It was
held in *Sajad Ahmed Mir that once it is proved that inspite of the
death of the bread winner, the family survived and substantial period
is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate
ground – Applying the law laid down in *Sajad Ahmed Mir, the second
son of respondent is not entitled to appointment on compassionate
ground – Delay and laches.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  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.  Even otherwise, on merits also, the respondent
shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on
the ground of delay and laches. [Para 5.1][40-A-B]
2. 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
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 37
37
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
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. [Para 6][40-G-H]
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. v.
Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : [2019] 7 SCR 905;
*State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5
SCC 766 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 576 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 7 SCR 905
relied on
Para 5.2
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 576
relied on
Para 5.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6910
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2021 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7791 of 2020.
Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. Prakriti Roy, Ms. Sonal Mashankar,
Advs. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
Limited has preferred the present appeal.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
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,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.