Compensation does not ban further appointment for a family member

J Jonah vs. Union of India

Filed under: Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: J. Jonah
Respondent: Union of India, rep. by Directorate of CVRDE and Ors.
Citation: MANU/TN/1153/2004; Decided on 13.10.2004
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judges: P.K. Mishra and Prabha Sridevan

Jonah filed this appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim for pension on grounds of disability. He also made an appeal to Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment seeking workmen's compensation as he acquired a disability while on duty.

Facts

Jonah was employed as a machinist in the office of the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) and had been working there for a little more than 9 years. While he was on duty, he injured his right eye.

Despite treatment at various hospitals, he was certified to be completely and permanently incapacitated for service and was terminated. Jonah applied for compensation which was rejected by the Medical Board and offered him gratuity instead for the duration of his service. He then filed a petition jointly with his wife directing CVRDE to pay invalid compensation.

This was dismissed on the grounds that Jonah had not completed 10 years of service. The petition directing CVRDE to give compassionate appointment was also disposed off by the Tribunal asking them to make the necessary representations in the prescribed format.

Jonah then filed a petition to the Supreme Court for payment of pension; the Supreme Court decided on a compensation of 1 lakh rupees to be given to Jonah. Following this Jonah again made a representation that he should be paid invalid pension; however this matter remained pending.

Jonah then filed an application for the compensation to be paid. The petition was dismissed with the recommendation that it would be more appropriate to file an application before the Administrative Tribunal or a petition under Article 226 before the High Court. Jonah filed the application upon whose rejection he filed the present petition.

Meanwhile, an application was filed by Jonah's daughter for employment on compassionate grounds, which was reportedly under consideration by the Ministry.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that there was no doubt that Jonah had sustained the disabling injury while on duty. With respect to the grant of pension, the Court adhered to the decision of the Supreme Court despite their sympathies.

However taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Court noted that it would not be appropriate to direct Jonah to go before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court appreciated that the person in question was blind and one who had been struggling against all odds for 15 years.

With a view to end his struggles and to bring the litigation to a close, the Court directed that a compensation of Rs.1, 50,000 should be paid to Jonah. It was also clarified that granting compensation should not be regarded as a bar for considering Jonah's daughter the application for employment on compassionate grounds.

Held: The writ petition is disposed off without any order as to costs.

Sections Referred: