Dependent of the missing employee, with the right to compensation ex-gravia after seven years of disappearance of employees: Punjab and Haryana HC

Background facts

The father of the petitioner worked with the Municipal Committee, Ambala as an Octroi pawn. He was about to retire on 31.10.1990. But 01.05.1990 disappeared. He could not be tracked until his retirement. The defendant considered him retired with effect since 31.10.1990 and, consequently, paid the tip, will leave the packaging and forecast fund with his widow.

The petitioner at that time was married, however, she lost her husband in 1994. She became dependent on her mother who did not have any source of income. The petitioner after his father’s statement as “considered dead,” filed a claim with the defendant for compassionate appointment. The order of the defendant Vide of 25.08.1998 rejected his claim claiming that there is no disposition for a compassionate appointment for a widowed daughter. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a dependent.

Turned for it, the petitioner presented the request for writing in search of leaving aside the order dated 25.08.1998, so the defendant rejected his claim for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner presented that, according to the 2003 policy, the dependents are entitled to the ex-gravia compensation of RS.2.50 Lakh. It was also stated that the petitioner had the right to the compensation of former RS. 15,000 according to the policy, which prevailed on the date of his father’s death. However, this amount was not paid to the petitioner or his mother.

The petitioner said that he has no right to benefit that he arises from the 2003 policy, however, he had the right to benefit the 1970 policy. At this stage, he cannot claim a compassionate appointment, however, he deserved ex-gravia. compensation.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner received a salary and his mother was paid the tip, the packaging of the shipment and the forecast fund. There was no doubt of a compassionate appointment because, according to the prevailing policy, the widow daughter had no right to compassionate appointment. The respondents argued that the petitioner was a married daughter even at the time of the employee’s death, and filed a claim in 1998.

Court findings

The court observed that the father of the petitioner disappeared in May 1990 and was about to withdraw on 31.10.1990. He was honorably retired and paid salary for the period. His family was paid the tip, license packaging and the forecast fund. The petitioner filed a compassionate appointment claim in 1998, which was rejected by the defendant because it does not fall within the “dependent” expression.

The court also noted that the 1970 policy was applicable at the time the employees disappeared. The court observed that the petitioner’s family did not receive ex-gravia compensation even though his father was missing while he was in service. The court observed that the reason not to make the payment may be that the employee was not declared dead before his retirement date.

The court argued that the declaration of being dead is issued after the expiration of seven years from the date of disappearance. The court argued that the family of the deceased employee had the right to the ex-gravia compensation of RS. 15,000 that were not paid to the family.

The Court addressed the defendant to pay compensation for overall sum of RS. 50,000/- which included the main amount of RS. 15,000 and considered interest. The court ordered that what was necessary should be done within two months.

With the aforementioned observations, the writing request was eliminated.

Case name: Bhupinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others

NO case.: CWP No. 5072 of 1999 (O & M)