In a writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court to seek appropriate directions against the wife (respondent 4) of the petitioner’s deceased son to maintain and look after her husband’s family members, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that it could not permit the wife to enjoy the fruits of compassionate employment while neglecting those whose welfare formed the basis of such appointment, and directed the respondent department to deduct Rs. 20,000/- from the monthly salary of the wife and credit the same into the bank account of the petitioner.
The petitioner’s son was employed as a Technical Assistant under the control of Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Partapur, Banswara (AVVNL) (respondent department). He died while in service on 15-09-2015, and on 21-09-2015, AVVNL issued a letter asking the petitioner to submit an application for compassionate appointment as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
By a letter dated 26-09-2015, the petitioner was informed that his name had been nominated and he was directed to complete the requisite formalities. However, the deceased’s wife had also applied for a compassionate appointment, and the petitioner voluntarily recommended that the said appointment be conferred upon his daughter-in-law instead of himself.
Thereafter, a rift developed between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law, after which the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Kherli Khatumar, District Alwar, stating that the daughter-in-law was residing with her parents and had severed relations with the petitioner’s family. The Chairman conducted an inquiry and submitted a report stating that the petitioner had no independent source of income and was facing acute financial hardship.
Despite said facts, the Superintending Engineer, AVVNL, appointed the wife to the post of Lower Division Clerk and placed her on probation by order dated 11-03-2016. The petitioner placed on record a representation dated 03-06-2017 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer, praying that since the wife had failed to maintain him, a portion of her salary be deposited directly into his bank account. A registered notice was also sent, but the same remained unheeded.
The petitioner contended that the wife’s compassionate appointment violated Rule 10(2) of the Rules as the same was granted without considering the welfare of the deceased’s dependents. The wife argued that initially, she maintained her in-laws as per an affidavit submitted by her, but later on, moved to her parental home after facing harassment and remarried, after which, she was relieved of her legal duty to maintain her former in-laws.
The Court found that the present case was a poignant example of how the benevolent purpose of the Rules had been rendered meaningless by the beneficiary’s conduct. It was noted that the petitioner and his wife were financially dependent on their late son and were left destitute after his untimely death. The Court further noted the report submitted by the Chairman and found that it confirmed the financial distress of the petitioner as well as the fact that the wife had moved out of her matrimonial house within eighteen days of her husband’s death.
The affidavit submitted by the wife at the time of seeking the appointment was perused by the Court, and, while refraining from commenting on her remarriage, it was said that the assurance given by her regarding the maintenance of her in-laws was a material condition on which the grant of the said appointment depended.
Further, the Court said that to allow the wife to go against the promises she made in her affidavit would amount to permitting a fraud upon the scheme of compassionate appointment itself. It was said that the parents of the deceased were left to struggle without any financial support from the very person who was expected to be their caretaker under the 1996 scheme. The Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel squarely applies to the case and that the wife cannot disown the corresponding obligation she had after availing the benefit upon specific promises made in the affidavit.
The Court observed that the wife was not extended the benefit of appointment based on her personal merit or qualifications, but was only an act of grace. It was said that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a social welfare measure to mitigate the immediate hardship faced by the family of a government servant who dies during service.
It was said that when one member of the family is extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, the same is not conferred in an individual capacity but as a representative of the entire family, and thus, it carries a corresponding moral and legal obligation to safeguard the interests of other surviving dependents.
The Court held that the authorities also failed to appreciate that the initial offer of compassionate appointment was extended in favor of the petitioner himself. While disposing of the petition, the Court directed AVVNL to ensure the deduction of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the salary of the wife of the deceased to be credited directly into the bank account of the petitioner for his maintenance from 01-11-2025, and the same was directed to continue till his lifetime or until further orders of competent authorities.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Priyanshu Gopa, Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev
For Respondents – Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Mr. Rajesh Punia, Mr. Madan Lal
