ORDER
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ.
1.
This writ appeal has been directed against the decision of the learned single Judge wherein the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in WPNo.11078 of 1979. The learned single Judge has also been pleased to pass on order directing the petitioner to make a representation for payment of compassionate pension in terms of the Circular dated 1-12-1995, and the respondents were directed to consider the representation in the light of the said Circular and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
2. Be it noted that the petitioner is a widow of one Syed Basha Mohiddin since deceased, who was appointed as Rakshak in Watch and Ward Department in Southern Railway on 26-9-1949. In 1976, however, a charge of theft was framed against him, and on receipt of explanation, he was removed from service on 16-1-1978. The petitioner’s deceased husband challenged the said order of removal by way of writ petition being WP No.11078 of 1979 in Karnataka High Court, and during the pendency of the matter, the petitioner’s husband unfortunately died on 30-12-1985. The writ petition, however, came up for final hearing in August, 1987, and the Karnataka High Court directed the Railways to consider the case of the son of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The relevant portion of the order as passed by the Karnataka High Court is set out herein below for convenience sake:
“…..During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has died. In the altered circumstances, there remains nothing for consideration.
However Sri Gachinamath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no one to look after the family and the deceased’s son, if provided with an appointment on compassionate ground, justice will be done to the family. It is learnt that Railway Department on compassionate grounds is recruiting heirs/dependants of its ex-employees. If deceased petitioner’s son is also given the like benefit, the hardship or agony of the family will considerably be lessened. The submission requires sympathetic consideration by the Department.
Writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.”
3. The factual matrix, however, depict that in terms of the order of the Karnataka High Court, the matter was duly considered, but the same, however, did not find favour with the Railway authorities, and it was, therefore, rejected. It is against the order of rejection, the petitioner moved this Court byway of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the learned single Judge has been pleased to pass the following order:
“……A perusal of the order indicates that
the respondents have not taken into account the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.11078 of 1979. The direction issued by the Karnataka High Court ought to have been honoured by the respondents. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.11078 of 1979.
As regards the compassionate pension, I direct the petitioner to make a
representation within one week from today claiming compassionate pension under the Circular dated 1-12-1995. The respondents are directed to consider the representation in the light of the said circular and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
With the above direction, the writ petition
is disposed of. No costs.”
4. It, therefore, appears that in order to implement the order of the Karnataka High Court, this Court has assumed the jurisdiction in the instant matter, which has been strongly commented upon by the learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal. It has also been contended that the writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable in this Court, and we do find some substance in such a submission. Be that as it may, considering the factual scope of the instant matter, it appears that the relationship between the employer and employee snapped as early as 1978. As such, obligation to appoint on compassionate grounds, the near relative or dependant of the deceased, does not and cannot arise. “Compassionate appointment”, as the words suggest, does not connote any right, but an indulgence having due regard to the factum of the service of the employee with the company or Organisation. In the contextual facts, as noted above, the relationship between the employer and employee stands snapped since the year 1978. The writ petition was disposed of, assuming this Court can entertain a second writ petition on which we are not expressing any opinion, without going into the merits a direction was given that the matter be considered, and in fact, the matter has been considered, and in our view the entire subject-matter stops there, and no further extension could be had on the principle of compassionate appointment in
this Court. It is to be noted further that compassionate appointment is given in order to meet the exigencies of the situation by reason of the death of the bread-earner of the family so that the employee’s family is not put into any financial stringency. Admittedly, the writ petitioner’s husband died in the year 1985 i.e., to say 13 years ago and 13 years otherwise seems to be a long period of time. If one can survive for such a long period, question of immediate necessity or immediate need for financial recuperation does not and cannot arise. By reason of the lapse of 13 years, no compassionate appointment can be had (sic upheld). In any event, the Karnataka High Court has dealt with the matter, and the Railway authorities correspondingly dealt with the matter in terms of the direction of the Karnataka High Court. Question of having any further direction from this Court to act in line with the direction of the Karnataka High Court, does not and cannot arise. The assumption of jurisdiction by the learned single Judge, in our view, cannot be had, and as such, the order as passed by the learned single Judge, cannot be sustained. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside and quashed. No order as to costs.
5. This order, however, will not prevent the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter, if otherwise, so advised. In the event, however, any pensionary benefit is available in terms of the circular of the Railways, the same be made available without any further loss of time and within a period of eight weeks from the date hereof.
