The Rajasthan High Court has asked a woman to pay 25 per cent of her salary to her in-laws, after she was found violating an affidavit she signed while taking up her late husband’s government job on compassionate grounds in 2017.
The court asked the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) to directly deposit 25 per cent of the widow’s salary to her mother-in-law’s bank account. It also ordered an equal division of the terminal benefits payable to the late employee between his wife and his mother.
Woman Promised Payment, Later Remarried
While securing the job on grounds of compassionate appointment after her husband’s death in 2017, the woman had promised to take responsibility to care for and maintain her in-laws, especially her parents-in-law.
However, shortly after securing the job, she left her matrimonial home and started to live independently. She subsequently remarried, while keeping her former husband’s job.
The late employee’s mother-in-law then filed a petition at the Rajasthan High Court, stating that shortly after securing the job, the woman had stopped caring for the in-laws. She further stated that the family was in financial distress after her son’s death, yet she did not receive any financial or other support despite the promises made before securing the job.
The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) had, in 2017, informed the family that, under government rules, a job could be offered to an eligible family member on compassionate grounds. Upon consultations, it was decided that the wife of the employee would take up the job, provided she would take responsibility for their maintenance and care.
‘Not Personal Benefit’
During the hearing of the case, the Rajasthan High Court noted that the objective of a compassionate appointment is to ease the immediate financial crisis of a government employee following their sudden demise.
It observed that such an appointment should not be viewed merely as a personal benefit for the late employee’s wife, clarifying that the concept of ‘family’ is not limited to the widow alone.
Advocate Amitraj Kaushal, representing the petitioner, stated that the court’s order was primarily based on the undertaking given by the woman at the time of securing the job.
In this case, the court noted that having secured the benefit of compassionate appointment based on this very undertaking, the woman could not absolve herself from her responsibilities. It said she could not simply abandon her elderly in-laws to fend for themselves.