By IANS
New Delhi : The Supreme Court has ruled that the dependent of a deceased government employee cannot claim a state job as a matter of right on compassionate ground.
The court held that the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family too has to be factored in by the government before employing him or her.
A bench of Justice P.P. Naolekar and Justice L.S. Panta gave the ruling Wednesday while quashing an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling that ordered the state government to appoint a widow, Sarvarunnisa Begum, on compassionate ground after her husband died in harness while working with the State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC.
“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 bench said.
After the death of her husband, Sarvarunnisa Begum, as per a special welfare scheme, had opted for a monetary benefit of Rs.100,000 instead of getting the job on compassionate grounds.
But later, she wanted to surrender the monetary benefit, pleading for a job. SRTC, however, rejected her request.
The widow moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which ordered her appointment by the corporation under a “bread winner scheme”.
The SRTC in turn challenged the high court’s single-judge bench order before a division bench, which ordered the widow’s appointment either as conductor or attendant in the SRTC.
The SRTC, in turn, moved the apex court, challenging the high court order.
Allowing the appeal, the apex court said that time and again it had held that compassionate appointments would be given to the dependent of the deceased, who died in harness, only to get over the financial difficulties due to the death of the bread-earner.
In the present case, the apex court said the corporation had given monetary benefit in addition to other benefits available to her after the sudden death of her husband.
“Thus, as a matter of right she was not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment and that to when it had not been brought to the notice of the court that any vacancy was available where the respondent (the widow) could have been accommodated,” the bench observed while upholding the corporation’s appeal.