ஏற்கனவேயே கருணை அடிப்படையில் நியமனம் என்பது அனேகமாக இல்லை என்றாகிப் போன நிலையில், இறந்து போன ஊழியர்கள் குடும்பங்கள் பல பிழைக்க வழியில்லாமல் திண்டாடிக் கொண்டிருக்க அவர்கள் துயர் துடைக்க தொழிற்சங்கங்கள் பலவகையிலும் முயற்சிகள் செய்தும் உரிய நேரத்தில் பலனின்றித் திணறிக் கொண்டிருக்க, நாட்டின் உச்சநீதி மன்றம் பொறுப்புகளைத் தட்டிக் கழிக்கும் நிர்வாகத்திற்கு மேலும் பலம் சேர்க்கும் வகையில் ஒரு அதிரடித் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கியுள்ளது. கருணை அடிப்படையில் வேலை என்பது உரிமை அல்ல என்றும் இறந்த ஊழியரின் குடும்ப பொருளாதார நிலையை எல்லா வகையிலும் ஆராய்ந்து அதன் பின்னும் அரசமைப்புச் சட்டம் 14 (சட்டத்தின் முன் அனைவரும் சமம்) மற்றும் 16 (அரசு வேலை வாய்ப்புகளில் அனைவருக்கும் சம உரிமை) இவைகளுக்குப் பாதகமில்லாமல் வேலை நியமனம் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டுமென்றும் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளது. இறந்த ஊழியரின் குடும்பத்துக்கு ஆதரவாக கீழ் நீதிமன்றங்கள் அளித்த தீர்ப்பை இரத்து செய்து இந்த தீர்ப்பு வழங்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. முழு விவரமும் கீழே உள்ளது.
Mere death of an employee does not entitle for compassionate appointment --- Supreme court
The Supreme Court has made a ruling that that death of a government employee in service does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment.
A bench said that it is required for the competent authority to examine the financial condition of family of the deceased. The job should be offered to the eligible family member only if it is satisfied that they would not be able to cope up with the crisis. The person seeking appointment must also possess the eligibility for the post.
Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment.
The bench allowed an appeal filed by MGB Gramin Bank which had challenged a 2010 judgement of the Rajasthan High Court by which one Chakrawarti Singh, son of a deceased Bank employee, was directed to be appointed under a scheme of compassionate employment.
Singh's father, who was working as a Class III employee with the Bank, had died on April 19, 2006 while in harness. Singh had applied for compassionate appointment on May 12, 2006.
The bench set aside the judgements of the High Court, saying, "The reasoning given by the single judge as well as by the division bench is not sustainable in the eyes of law."
It also said that "an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment". The bench said compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a "matter of right, as it is not a vested right".
It also said that every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Article 14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
"An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner," the bench said.
The Bank had said during pendency of Singh's application, a new scheme dated June 12, 2006 came into force with effect from October 6, 2006 which provided that all applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to the family instead of compassionate appointment.
This contention was rejected by the High Court which said the cause of action, i.e death of the employee, had arisen prior to the commencement of the new scheme and, therefore, the case was to be considered as per the then existing scheme which provided for compassionate appointment and not for grant of ex-gratia payment
No comments:
Post a Comment