- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the decision taken and communicated by respondent No. 6 contained in letter No. 170 dated 27th March, 2001 whereby and whereunder the Management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited ("SAIL" for short) shown its inability to acced to the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
(2.) ONE of the grounds shown to reject the claim of the petitioner is that no provision exists in SAIL/Raw Materials Division for providing employment to the nominee/next of kith and kin of ex -employee on compassionate ground. The other ground taken is that as per the nominee of late Birendra Thakur is covered under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and enjoying the benefit of compassionate ground as per the existing provision, he is not entitle for benefit on compassionate appointment, It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner late Birendra Thakur was in service of SAIL and died in harness on 6th June, 1998. The petitioner, dependant son applied for compassionate appointment on 6th August, 1998 but no action having been taken he had to move this Court in CWJC No. 4387 of 2000, wherein this Court vide order dated 3rd January, 2001 directed the respondents to decide the application as has been preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned rejection letter was issued.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that there is scheme for compassionate appointment as reiterated vide subsequent circular dated 2nd May, 2001. It is only mentioned therein that the scheme will not be made applicable to those who are covered under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and will be applicable in the case where the death is due to kidney failure, heart attack and cancer.;