TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2001 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3886 of 2001, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court by reason whereof the appellant -Steel Authority of India Ltd. having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and its Lime Stone Mines at Bhawanathpur, District Garhwa, have been directed to consider the case of petitioner/respondent (Ranjit Kumar Thakur) for appointment on compassionate grounds against an appropriate post and vacancy. The learned single Judge also observed that if there was no vacancy existing for the present then they would consider the case for such appointment, if vacancy existed in future, say within a year along with those, if any, similarly situated.
(2.) THE learned single Judge relied upon the case of Balbir Kuwar and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493, and held that the above mentioned judgment was binding upon Steel Authority of India Ltd. While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge observed that there was no dispute that a scheme for compassionate appointment reiterated by circular dated 2.5.2001 is in existence. However, the appellants case was that the scheme will apply only in cases where the death was only due to kidney failure, heart attack or cancer. The case of the appellant was that it will not apply to cases where death has occurred for any other reason. Rejecting the aforesaid contention of the appellants and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge observed that it has already been held by the Apex Court that the Family Benefits Scheme cannot be equated with compassionate appointment and directed to consider the case of the dependent employee for compassionate appointment. We do not appreciate the stand of the appellant in limiting the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment to only those who die of either kidney failure, heart attack or cancer. Death is not optional. Nobody can opt and say that he is entitled to a particular kind of death. Death comes to all and, therefore, limiting the eligibility to only three cases of death is, in the opinion of this Court is absolutely unreasonable and irrational. That apart, we find no irregularity with the order of the single Judge and, therefore, we accordingly uphold the same. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER , we cannot loose sight of the manner in which the appellants have boldly taken the aforementioned stand to the effect that the respondent is not eligible as per the circular. The circular was appended as Annexure 7 to the writ application bearing No. W.P. (S) 3886/2001. The abovementioned circular lays down inter alia, that only those persons would be entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment where death occurred due to kidney failure, heart attack or cancer.;