UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SMT. DRAUPADI BEHARA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 03-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. DRAUPADI BEHARA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 3, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment on compassionate ground-Government of-Orissa-G-1. 
Dept. of Posts, Letter No. 17-85193-E.D & Trg. dated 2.2.1994-Letter of MP/ 
· MLA certifoing that employed member living separately and not referring any 
assistance to main family-Effect of-EDDA-cum-EDMC-Death of-Leaving 
his wife and jive sons-Application by one of sons for appointment on 
compassionate ground-Inquiry revealing that widow and sons were living 
D together and there was no evidence of separation-Letter of MP in favour of 
applicant-Tribunal rejecting the claim-High Court directing authorities to 
appoint applicant within specified period-Held, High Court erred in giving 
the direction-There was not even a remote suggestion in the G.I. that certificate 
of MPIMLA would be determinative-Matter remitted to CAT for 
reconsideration. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 15059 of 1998. 
F 
R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Imtiaz Ahmed, V.K. Verma 
and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants. 
Shiliashish Misra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
The respondent No. I is the widow of one late Ishwar Chandra Behara, 
H 
18 
I-
U.0.1.v. DRAUPADI BEHARA [PASAYAT . .l.J 
19 
who was working EDDA cum EDMC. He died on 25.02.1995. Indisputedly, A 
he left behind his widow and five sons including respondent No. ·2. An 
application for employment of respondent No. 2 as a compassionate measure 
was filed before the authorities. The same was rejected on the basis of an 
enquiry conducted which revealed that the sons were living together and 
there was no prima-facie evidence of any separation. An application under 
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') was B 
filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the 
CAT' ). It was pleaded that the authorities were not justilied in rejecting the 
application for compassionate appointment merely on the basis that the report 
indicated about joint living of the widow and the five sons. The present 
respondents filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of C 
India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') before the Orissa High Court i.e. 
OJC No. 15059 of 1998. By the impugned jw.lgment, the High Court held 
that the decision of the authorities rejecting the prayer for compassionate 
appointment was not in order. Direction was given to appoint the present 
respondent No.2 within a particular time with the condition that respondent 
No.2 will financially support respondent No. I so long as she is alive. 
D 
Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the 
findings recorded by the High Court are erroneous. The rejection of the claim 
for compassionate appointment was done after considering the report made 
by the concerned authority which conducted due and proper enquiry about E 
the financial status. CAT considered the relevant aspects and rightly held that 
the prayer for compassionate appointment was not to be accepted. The High 
Court erroneously placed emphasis on the certificate issued by the Member 
of Parliament and oirected for appointment. Such a direction could not have 
been given. At the most, the High Court could have directed for consideration 
of the case of respondent No.2 along with similarly placed persons. In any F 
event, no evidence was led to shrw that the findings recorded by the enquiring 
authority were erroneous. 
In response, Mr. Shibhashih Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondents submitted that the scheme of the authorities clearly indicates that 
if a certificate is issued by a Sarpanch or Member of Parliament cir MLA, 
then the request for compassionate appointment may be entertained and 
considered on merits. In this case, indisputedly, a Member of Parliament had 
given a certificate which was not shown to be wrong. 
G 
We find that it has been clearly indicated in the report about sufficient H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) I S.C.R. 
A income of all members of the family and the prima facie absence of any 
material to show that the members had separated. The respondents remained 
content by producing certificate o

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