1. The petitioner, being the wife of deceased-Suresh Sa, who was an employee of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-12 issued by opposite party no.3 rejecting her claim of dependant employment as per clause-9.3.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement-IX (NCWA-IX).2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa was appointed as Driver (T) on 01.01.1986 in the Belpahar Open Cast Mines of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL). Subsequently, he was promoted to category-II and confirmed in category-I on 01.01.1987. Thereafter, he was posted in IB Vally Area and continued as such till he was posed at Lakhanpur area as Dumper Operator. He was sent for refresher course of Training Institute, IB Vally, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited during October, 1999. While continuing in service at Lakhanpur Open Cast Project, he died in a road accident on 20.01.2007, at the time of returning home, leaving behind his widow Basanti Sa (petitioner), one daughter and two sons. The petitioner, upon death of her husband, on 12.03.2007 applied for the death benefit of her Late husband enclosing all documents which were not provided. Subsequently, on 25.09.2008, she applied for compassionate appointment until her sons get appointment as dependant. She also submitted similar letter, along with all the necessary documents, which was received by Lakhanpur O.C.P. on 03.10.2008. The petitioner, along with the application in the prescribed form, submitted legal heir certificate, Family Praman Patra, Character Certificate, No Objection of family members, five photographs, besides her voter identity card. Though the application was complete in all respect, there was no response from the opposite parties. Consequently, on 16.11.2010, she made a representation to the Sr. Personal Manager, and also further representations to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) on 09.05.2011 and 21.07.2011 claiming CMPF, pension under CMPS 98, Leave Encashment, Compassionate appointment under clause-9.4.3 of NCWA-IX, but no action was taken. Again on 29.09.2011, she made a fresh application to the Sr. Manager, Personnel of MCL.2.1 The petitioner, after waiting for six years from the date of death of her husband for compassionate appointment, as a dependant, received a letter on 18.08.2012 from the Chief Manager (Personnel), Lakhanpur Area wherein the petitioner was advised to attend an enquiry on 24.08.2012 with regard to her claim of compassionate appointment. The petitioner attended the enquiry on the date fixed, but she did not receive any communication with regard to its outcome. The petitioner requested for release of terminal benefits like gratuity and other benefits, as due and admissible to the deceased employee. In response to same, gratuity was released after four years of the death of her husband and she was also allowed to receive a meager pension of Rs.1800/- per month, and she was under threat of eviction from the quarter allotted to her husband.2.2 In spite of several requests, when the petitioner was not provided compassionate appointment, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14541 of 2013 seeking compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as per NCWA-IX. This Court, vide order dated 05.08.2013, disposed of the said writ petition directing the Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL, Lakhanpur Area to look into the grievance of the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with the prevailing rules and take a decision thereon within a period of thirty days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The said order was duly communicated to the Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL, Lakhanpur Area, pursuant to which, the petitioner was communicated, vide letter dated 23.09.2013, that her case was processed for taking a decision as per prevailing rules for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 24.09.2013, the Chief Manager (Personnel), MCL, Lakhanpur Area moved his project officer for taking necessary steps in the matter. On 03.10.2013, the Senior Manager (P&A) called upon the petitioner to produce 18 listed documents, which she complied vide letter dated 16.10.2013, and the same was acknowledged by the authority on 17.10.2013. On 20.10.2013, the petitioner was directed to appear before the medical board for age assessment. Accordingly, she appeared before the medical board and was found fit and her age was determined as 42 years. But, subsequently on 28.12.2013, she was intimated that the Area Screening Committee would meet on 30.12.2003 with all related papers and major dependant family members. She produced all the papers in her possession justifying that she is the wife of Late Suresh Sa and all the service records to prove that Suresh Sa is the son of Gangarath Sa, for which she is entitled to appointment as dependent of the deceased employee of MCL as per the NCWA-IX. 2.3. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, vide letter dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-12, on the plea that her husband-Suresh Sa claiming as the son of Gangarath Sa was appointed as Mazdoor category-I under land looser scheme against the land acquired in village Darlipali on 14.03.1984. In the year 1987, Gangarath Sa lodged a complaint before the General Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Brajrajnagar against Suresh Sa. In the year 2000, Smt. Balamati Sa, wife of Late Gangarath Sa made a complaint before the Sub- Area Manager, Lakhanpur OCP against fake employment of Suresh Sa and requested to provide employment to her adopted son Thabira Sa in place of Suresh Sa. On the basis of said complaint of Balamati Sa, the Project Officer, Lakhanpur OCP had issued a letter on 11.10.2000 to Suresh Sa and asked for comment. On 23.05.2006, another complaint was made by a person claiming himself as Suresh Sa, son of Gangarath Sa of village Darlipali before the District Magistrate, Jharsuguda endorsing a copy to C.M.D., MCL and on receiving the aforesaid complaint, the Director, Personnel, MCL, vide his letter dated 26.05.2006, advised the General Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. During course of enquiry, Suresh Sa expired by a road accident on 20.01.2007. Thereafter, the Project Officer, Lakhanpur Area constituted a committee consisting of three officers of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., namely, Safety Officer, Deputy Finance Manager and Deputy Personal Manager to cause an enquiry for genuineness of facts relating to employment of Late Suresh Sa. The committee proceeded to village Darlipali, which is village of the land oustee, namely, Late Gangarath Sa and met the villagers of Darlipali and found that Gangarath Sa and Balamati had died by that time. On enquiry the committee ascertained that Gangarath Sa was issueless, therefore, Suresh Sa could not have been appointed as the son of Gangarath Sa in 1986. Before completion of enquiry, Suresh Sa died in the year 2007. On the basis of dispute with regard to the genuineness of employment of Suresh Sa claiming the son of land oustee Gangarath Sa, the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on 30.05.2014. Hence this application.3. Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa was appointed in MCL and discharged his duty from 01.01.1986 till his death, i.e., 20.01.2007. It is also contended that the petitioner has been allowed to receive the benefit of the deceased employee as the legal representative of land oustee, even though there were three complaints lodged by Late Gangarath Sa, his wife Balamati Sa and another person claiming to be Suresh Sa. Even though complaints were lodged in the year 1987, 2000 and on 23.05.2006 during life time of Suresh Sa, enquiry was not conducted to find out the correctness of allegations made against the deceased employee. It is further contended that the petitioner, being the legal representative of Suresh Sa, has been paid gratuity amount and she has been receiving pension of Rs.1800/- per month, besides other benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law. It is further contended that even though the Director, Personnel, MCL, vide letter dated 26.03.2006, advised the General Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action, the same was not done during life time of the petitioner's husband, and much thereafter the enquiry was conducted in 2012, when the petitioner had already submitted application for compassionate appointment in 2007, and at no point of time the petitioner has ever been communicated with regard to the allegation made against genuineness of continuance of service of her husband. After the death of her husband, the authority caused enquiry behind the back of the deceased employee and ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, vide impugned letter dated 30.05.2014, in compliance of the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14541 of 2013, without application of mind and without compliance of the provisions of law, including the principle of natural justice. It is further contended that under the NCWA-IX, the petitioner is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground and that cannot be rejected on a flimsy ground after a long lapse of time, as there is no dispute that the petitioner's husband was not working as an employee under MCL. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Smt. Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal, AIR 2018 SC 783 and Bhabani Shankar Pandit v. Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Orissa, 2018 (I) ILR-CUT-316.4. Per contra, Mr. P.R. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties reiterated the grounds taken in the letter dated 30.05.2014 for rejection of compassionate appointment and contended that the petitioner's husband Suresh Sa claiming himself as the son of Gangarath Sa of village Darlipali entered into service in MCL under land looser scheme. There were many complaints, including the complaints of Gangarath Sa, his wife Balamati Sa and another person claiming to be Suresh Sa, lodged before the MCL authorities that Late Suresh Sa entered into service by impersonating himself as the son of Gangarath Sa. The enquiry committee, after causing enquiry, came to a conclusion on 25.03.2009 that Late Gangarath Sa was issueless and Late Suresh Sa claiming himself as the son of Late Gangarath Sa was appointed as Piece Rated Temporary worker under erstwhile SECL. Thereafter, Late Gangarath Sa died in the year 1994 and his wife Balamati Sa died in the year 2003. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed under dependant employment as per NCWA- IX, as she has received financial benefits after death of her husband taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry committee. Thereby, contended that the order of rejection for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, he claims for dismissal of the writ petition.5. This Court heard Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-MCL. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.6. On the basis of the facts narrated above, it is made clear that the petitioner's husband Suresh Sa was the employee of MCL from 01.01.1986 till 20.01.2007 and he died in a road accident while in employment. The petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, has been paid gratuity amount as well as the pension admissible to her. This fact has not been disputed by the opposite parties in their counter affidavit. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:"6. That is humbly submitted here that the statement made in almost all the averments are correct, but however, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed under dependant employment as per the National Coal Wages Agreement-IX (NCWA- IX) and since she had received all the financial benefits after the death of her husband Late Suresh Sa, taking into consideration the enquiry report as per Annexure-C as well as the Legal Heir Certificate as per Annexure-D."7. In view of such admission in the counter affidavit and particularly when the financial benefits admissible to the petitioner after the death of her husband has been paid, there is no valid and justifiable reason not to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to her. As such, the reasons, which have been assigned in the impugned letter dated 30.05.2014 in Annexure-12, relate to the entry into service of deceased Suresh Sa, being the legal representative of Late Gangarath Sa, who is a land oustee of village Darlipali. If during his life time Late Gangarath Sa lodged a complaint before the authority in the year 1987, but the authority sat over the matter without casing enquiry at the relevant point of time and subsequently, Late Gangarath Sa died in the year 1994. Thereafter, his wife Late Balamati Sa also lodged similar complaint in the year 2000, but no action was taken on such allegation and subsequently, she also died in the year 2003. On 23.05.2006, another complaint was made by a person claiming himself as Suresh Sa before the authority. On receiving the aforesaid complaint, the Director, Personnel, MCL, vide his letter dated 26.05.2006, directed the General Manager, Lakhanpur Area to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. Instead of taking immediate steps, the authority slept over the matter. Ultimately, the petitioner's husband, Suresh Sa died in a road accident on 20.01.2007. The cumulative effect of the facts clearly indicates that during lifetime of the deceased employee, the opposite parties have not taken any care to cause enquiry, so far as his entry into service is concerned. After his death, if any committee is constituted or any enquiry is conducted, the same cannot have any justification, as because a right has already accrued in favour of the deceased employee by his continuance in service for more than 20 years. More so, after the death of the deceased employee, his wife, the petitioner herein submitted her application for compassionate appointment. At no point of time, she has been communicated about any dispute with regard to entry of her husband into service, rather her application was entertained and she was called upon to make good the documents that were not filed, which she complied. Thereafter, she was called upon to appear before Medical Board for age assessment, pursuant to which she appeared and her age was determined as 42 years and she was found fit. Thereby, the opposite parties now cannot take a contrary stand with regard to her husband's entry into service being a beneficiary of land oustee, rather they are estopped from raising such objection at this stage. Therefore, the reasons which have been indicated in the order impugned for denial of benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same are violative of principle of natural justice.8. It is of relevance to note that a Bipartite Agreement was entered into on 23.12.2000 called National Coal Wages Agreement (in short "NCWA"), which is binding on the parties. The compassionate appointment is governed by the said agreement. For just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant provisions of such NCWA are referred to below:"9.3.0. Provision of employment to dependants 9.3.1. Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who died while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows:9.3.2. Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. Insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Para 126.96.36.199.4.0. Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place.xx xx xx9.4.3. Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place:(i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.(ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by Coal Company concerned, not arising out of injury or disease as in Para (i) above, the concerned employee will be eligible for the benefit under this Clause if the employee is upto the age of 58 years.(iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter/ widowed daughter in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the employees may be considered.(iv) The dependant to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit shall not apply in the case of spouse.9.5.0. Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant.Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be reguLated as under:(i) in case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs 4000 per month or employment irrespective of her age.(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependants is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs 3000 per month or employment.In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates as in Paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1-1-2000."9. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the provisions of employment to the dependent have been made under clause-9.3.0. Under Clause-9.3.1, the employment shall be provided to one dependant of workers, who are disabled permanently and also those who died while in service. Under Clause-9.3.2, employment to one dependent of the worker, who dies while in service, is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Similarly, under sub- clause-(iv) of clause-9.4.3, it has been specifically mentioned that the dependant to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and age should not be more than 35 years, provided the age limit shall not apply in the case of spouse. Under sub-clause-(iii) of clause-9.5.0, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness, under Clause 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates as indicated in Paras (i) & (ii) above. The said agreement was effective from 01.01.2000.10. On the basis of the materials available on record, the petitioner was directed to appear before the medical board for her age assessment on 20.10.2013. Subsequently, she appeared and though she was found within the age limit and she was determined as 42 years, in the meantime, more than seven years have elapsed, so by this time she must have attained the age of 49 years. On the basis of the NCWA-IX mentioned above, being the wife of the deceased employee, the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment.As now her age has been more than 45 years and her two sons are available to get employment, in that case, the option may be left to the petitioner either she or one of her sons can be given compassionate appointment befitting to their skill and qualification as they must have attained the age of majority in the meantime.11. Similar question had come up for consideration before the apex Court in Smt. Subhadra (supra), wherein the question of compassionate appointment governed by Bipartite Agreement, namely NCWA was under consideration. The apex Court has come to a finding that the compassionate appointment is governed by Bipartite Agreement and the terms of agreement are very specific and give no room for any discretion, and having so found, in paragraphs-7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment held as follows:"7. In Para 9.5.0(ii) of the Agreement, it is very clearly and specifically mentioned that a female dependant, if below 45 years of age, has an option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment. It is not an option reserved to the employer, but an option given to the employee. It was in terms of the Agreement only that the appellant had been insisting that she should be given employment, if she is otherwise eligible in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. But the second respondent kept on insisting that the son, being above the age of 12 years, would be kept on live roster until he attains the age of 18 years and till such time, the appellant would be given compensation @ Rs 3000 per month in terms of Para 9.5.0(iii) of the Agreement.8. Para 9.5.0(iii) would come into play only in case para 9.5.0(ii) does not operate. Employment is assured to the dependant in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. If the female dependant opts for employment, there is no further discretion left to the employer, unless she is otherwise ineligible. There is no such contention raised by anybody.9. in the above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no other option but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and dispose of the appeal in the proper perspective of the Bipartite Agreement.10. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the employment to the appellant at this stage and age may not be a workable relief since the appellant herself has Later requested for employment to her son. But the question is how to compensate the appellant for the period from 2004 to 2018.11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be met and complete justice to the appellant will be rendered in case the appeal is disposed of as follows:I) The second respondent is directed to appoint one son of the appellant, who has otherwise become major as of now, as per the choice of the appellant, within two months from today. Needless to say that the appointment will be commensurate with the qualification and entitlement of the incumbent.II) From 1-2-2004, as ordered by the High Court, the appellant shall be paid Rs 3000 per month along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the respective dates when the amount became due.III) Towards all other claims on account of loss of employment for the last 13 years, as far as the appellant is concerned, it would be just, fair and reasonable that a lump sum amount is paid to the appellant, which we fix as Rs 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs). This amount shall also be paid to the appellant within two months from today."Considering the ratio decided in the aforementioned case, the petitioner, having stood in the same footing and governed under NCWA, is to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with bipartite agreement and law laid down by the apex Court mentioned supra.12. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, the apex Court explained the rationale of the rule relating to compassionate appointment, which is reproduced below:"The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412, and Commissioner of Public Instructions v. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206.13. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, the apex Court pointed out that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family, and that such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.14. In Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192, the apex Court explained the purpose of compassionate appointment and pointed out its exceptional nature and the need to take care that its application did not interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible to seek employment.15. In Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596 it is categorically held that sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family. This is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. This being the reasons assigned, compassionate appointment can be granted to a member of the deceased family.16. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the apex Court laid down the principles relating to compassionate appointment in clear and emphatic language, which is reproduced below:-"The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule make in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."17. In Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India, (2005) 10 SCC 289, the apex Court held that compassionate appointment is recompense over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of deceased employee as benefits of service which they get on death of the employee.18. In Bhabani Shankar Pandit, mentioned supra, the purpose of giving compassionate appointment cannot be and should not be frustrated by the authority on a flimsy ground, after the death of the deceased employee by causing an enquiry behind his back, when the petitioner claimed for compassionate appointment.19. Taking the above factual matrix and propositions of law into account, there is no other option but to set aside the impugned letter dated 30.05.2014 under Annexure-12 issued by the authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The opposite party no.3 is directed to give compassionate appointment to one of the sons of the petitioner, who has otherwise become major as of now, as per choice of the petitioner, within a period of two months from today. Needless to say the appointment will commensurate with the qualification and entitlement of the incumbent. However, for causing harassment to the petitioner from 20.01.2007 (when the husband of the petitioner died) till date, for a period of more than 13 years, it would be just, fair and reasonable if a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) only is paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment.20. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs.