In a ruling the Supreme Court has said that a dependant of government employees, who dies while attaching with job, can not seek compassionate appointment from the employer after accepting monetary compensations. The court said that dependant of deceased employee has no right to seek appointment on compassionate ground.
Moreover, decision to provide employment in this matter would depend on the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family.
A bench comprising Justices PP Naolekar and LS Panta said that compassionate employment is not a matter of right and despite, if offered has to be restricted to class III and IV posts. The bench further clarified that in this particular case, the acceptance of monetary benefit besides the statutory death benefits, virtually invalidates the claim seeking compassionate employment.
The Apex Court direction thus annulled the Andhra Pradesh High Court order, which had passed on to the appointment of a widow, Sarvarunnisa Begum, on the compassionate ground after her husband died in harness while working with the State Road Transport Corporation.
Through this ruling, a Bench annulled the offer of a widow to return the monetary benefit in exchange for employment on compassionate grounds.
In this case the respondent (Begum) had under a special scheme preferred for a monetary benefit of Rs 1 lakh and had refused the option of appointment on compassionate ground.
Sometimes later she altered her preference and requested the corporation that she be given employment and in lieu of that got ready to submit the additional monetary benefit, which was rejected by the corporation.
''Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The government or the public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,'' the apex court said, referring its earlier observation in the Umesh Kumar Nagpal case in 1994.
Earlier, the single judge of the High Court while hearing on the writ petition filed by the widow had directed the corporation she be appointed under “Bread Winner Scheme.”
Against the single bench HC order, the corporation had filed a petition to the Division Bench of HC, which modified the earlier order and gave a fresh direction that Sarvarunnisa Begum be appointed to the post of either conductor or as an attendant. The corporation then appealed in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, allowing the corporation's appeal, repealed both the orders of the HC saying they grossly misread the settled position.
The Supreme Court clarified that in the present case the corporation had provided additional monetary benefit of Rs 1 lakh in addition to statutory death benefits after the sudden death of the her husband in harness.
The Bench further said quoting the 1994 judgment, that mere death of a working employee did not entitle respondent to seek compassionate employment, as it also would depend on the financial condition and vacancy position in the government organisation.
|
|
Comments:
