Instances when Compassionate Employment is Granted

Uppala Venkat vs. Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others

Filed Under: Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Petitioner: Uppala Venkat
Respondent: Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others
Citation: 2003-III-LLJ 1092: 2003(5) ALD 263: (2003) 111 LLJ 1092 AP
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judges: G.Bikshapathy & Gopalkrishna Tamada

Facts

Uppala Venkat was working as a senior trolley man in the South Central Railway. One day he fell off a moving train and was run over by another train. As a result of this he lost his right leg and his right hand. After the accident he was subjected to medical tests and was declared unfit for all classes of employment in the railways and his loss of earning capacity was assessed at 100%. In such circumstances, he made an application to the authorities to provide a job to his wife on compassionate grounds.

However, the authorities insisted that he should opt for voluntary retirement and then the authorities would consider providing a job to his wife, Laxmi. As per these directions Uppala made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad. But CAT held that the appointment on compassionate grounds of de-categorized staff was not permissible as per an earlier decision of the A.P. High Court. Uppala filed the present writ petition against this decision of the tribunal.

Arguments made on behalf of Uppala Venkat

Venkat's lawyer argued that the facts in the present case were different from the previous case and that the compassionate appointment was not being claimed on principle of descent but was necessary in the interests of justice. Further, it was argued that the Railway was willing to consider Uppala's case but their consideration would go against the principle laid down in the previous case.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act protected people who acquired total disability while in service by ensuring that they were provided alternate employment or adjusted against a supernumerary post with the same pay and benefits until they attained the age of retirement.

The Court referred to some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court of India. Further the Court observed that there was no dispute that the person is totally incapacitated to discharge any of the functions. It also observed that though, the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule it had to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court held that Venkat's case could be distinguished from the previous decision of the High Court and that the decision in that case would not come in the way of considering Venkat's wife for a compassionate appointment. Further, it being an exception to the rule coupled with the commitment made by the Railways had to be considered differently (refer to quotes).

The Court pointed out that since Venkat was totally incapacitated, the question of creating a supernumerary post would not arise.

Under the circumstances, the orders of the Central administrative Tribunal were set aside and the writ petition was allowed with the following directions:

  1. That the Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Central Railway, Secunderabad shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules, retiring Uppala from service on the ground of medical unfitness and consequently he would be entitled to all the benefits including pension, gratuity etc. in accordance with the rules.

  2. The Railway shall, grant compassionate appointment to his wife after his retirement.

  3. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sections Referred:

Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Hyderabad vs. D Gopaiah, 2002 I LLJ 475
  • Yogender Pal Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1015: (1987) 1 SCC 631: 1987 I LLJ 337
  • Gajula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564
  • LIC vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, AIR 1994 SC 2148: (1994)2 SCC 718: 1994 II LLJ 173
  • Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, 2003 II LLJ 735

Quotes from the Judgment:

"When a beneficial provision like providing succour and sustenance to the unfortunate and ill-fated employees is conceived and made in the interest of working class, Courts are bound to interpret the said provision to sustain it".