Narayani Devi, w/o. late Bibhuti Bhushan, R/o. Co-operative Colony, Plot No. 367, P.O. + v. 1. The Union of India through the Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Ispat
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2049 of 2024 ---------- Narayani Devi, w/o. late Bibhuti Bhushan, R/o. Co-operative Colony, Plot No. 367, P.O. + P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi-110003. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro- 827001. 3. The General Manager (Personnel), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro- 827001 4. The General Manager (Town & Administration), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro- 827001. 5. The Deputy General Manager (Town & Administration), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro- 827001. 6. The Assistant Manager (Personnel, Town Administration and Education), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro- 827001. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the SAIL For UOI ----------- : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Lawyer 06/ 08.08.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2017, passed in Original Application No. 051/00113/2016, by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Branch at Ranchi. Further prayer 1 has been made for quashing the letter dated 07.07.2015, issued by respondent No. 6, whereby the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the husband of petitioner was employed under respondent-SAIL. On 20.02.2015 while returning home he died due to cardiac arrest. After his death the petitioner made representation before the respondent-authorities for compassionate appointment which was rejected mechanically vide order dated 07.07.2015 in a most arbitrary manner and no reasons whatsoever has been assigned while rejecting the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring Original Application for a direction to the respondents for granting compassionate appointment to her or one of her legal heirs but the said O.A. also stood dismissed. Hence, she has been compelled to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the husband of petitioner died. Since death occurred while returning to home after office hours, in view of para 3.1.a of the Guideline and Procedure for dealing with compassionate appointment, petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further argues that though the claim of the petitioner has been rejected but the respondents have failed to assign any valid and cogent reason for such rejection and as such, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL by opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though reasons have not been assigned in the impugned order but the same has been mentioned in the written statement and in view of the same, it can comfortably be inferred that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment in view of respondent’s Policy Decision. It has been further 2 argued that since Policy Decision was not challenged and also in view of the fact that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, petitioner is not entitled for any consideration for compassionate appointment. 6. 7. Heard the parties at length. Challenge was thrown to the order dated 07.05.2015, before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Prima facie it appears that Central Administrative Tribunal instead of appreciating the circumstances in which the deceased-husband of the petitioner died, has passed the order impugned mechanically taking into consideration that death occurred after office hours and as such, disentitled the petitioner from getting any relief. The Tribunal has totally relied upon the statements of the respondents and misconstrued that Para-3.1.a is not applicable. This Court is of the view that petitioner’s case has not been considered by the respondent-SAIL as well as by the learned Tribunal in right perspective. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner died while returning to home after office hours due to cardiac arrest. It is irrelevant where the dead-body was found, where it was lying. 8. Counsel for the respondent-SAIL has tried to improve his case by making submissions that though reasons have not been assigned in the impugned order but the same has been stated in the written statement filed before the learned Tribunal and as such, it cannot be said that impugned order is without any reason. Learned counsel has tried to improve the case by way of affidavit. The same is impermissible in the eyes of law. 9. This issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16, and in para 9, their Lordships have held as under:- the "9. An attempt was made by referring Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was to 3 his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to they are addressed and must be construed whom objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." The aforesaid decision has also been followed in several subsequent decisions like in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, paragraph-8 of which reads as under:- 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions, subsequent supply of reasons in the counter affidavit/ written statement cannot convert a non-speaking order into a speaking order. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the 4 respondents that the reasons have been assigned in the written statement which makes a non-speaking order into a speaking one, is not accepted by this Court. 11. It is a settled legal propositions that no vested right has accrued to the legal heirs of a deceased employee to claim for compassionate appointment. But it has also been settled that compassionate appointment is given only with aim and object to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 12. The respondents while rejecting the claim of petitioner has not assigned valid and cogent reasons and the same has been supplied in the written statement filed before the learned Tribunal, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has also not considered this aspect of the matter and has passed the order mechanically 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the impugned order dated 17.10.2017, passed in O.A. No. 051/00113/2016 by learned Central Administrative Tribunal as also the order dated 07.05.2015, issued by respondent No. 6 rejecting the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-SAIL is directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass suitable order issuing letter of appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) 5