Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Brijesh Kumar Kaushal vs Central Excise & Customs on 26 September, 2024
(Reserved on 06.09.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1541/2017
This is the 26th Day of September 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Brijesh Kumar Kaushal Son of late Ram Kewal Ram, Resident of
Village-Lakhmipur, Post - Belwa (Pindra), District- Varanasi.
........... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service
Tax, District - Allahabad.
2. The Administrative Officer (Establishment-1) Central Excise and Service
Tax, District - Allahabad.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division
Varanasi, District -Varanasi.
........ Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground.
3. The facts of the case as apparent from the record are that the applicant's father Sri Ram Kewal Ram died on 22.08.1998 while serving as Deputy Office Superintendent leaving behind his widow and five children. At the time of his death, the applicant was still a minor and his mother being illiterate chose not to immediately apply for compassionate appointment. However, on 31.07.2000, she submitted an application Page No.2 seeking employment for her son (the applicant) under the compassionate appointment. Over the next several years, the applicant made multiple requests for consideration of her case by submitting applications dated 31.07.2000, 30.08.2000, 05.03.2004, 16.11.2004, 06.05.2005, 26.06.2006, 07.08.2006, and 17.08.2006. Despite these efforts, no action was taken by the authorities.
4. Thereafter, on 27.12.2016, Respondent-2 informed the applicant that his case had been examined in a departmental meeting held on 25.11.2016 and the applicant was conveyed that due to the absence of vacancies, he could not be appointed at that time. In the said letter, it is also mentioned that if in the future vacancies arose his case would be reconsidered. Frustrated by the long delay, the applicant submitted another application on 27.12.2016, referencing his previous submissions and again requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. Since no heed was paid on the said application, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the counter-affidavit filed on 04.07.2023, has denied the applicant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is contended that the applicant's father died nearly 25 years ago and no justification has been provided for the extensive delay in filing the Original Application. The counsel further contends that after the death of the deceased employee, the applicant's family has been receiving a family pension of Rs. 11,930/- per month. Further, the family owns two biswa of agricultural land and a house. It is also contended that the applicant's request for compassionate appointment was considered by the departmental screening committee during a meeting held on 25.11.2016. However, due to the non-availability of vacancies, his request was not accepted and his representation remains in the pending list to be considered if future vacancies arise.
Page No.36. The applicant has also filed a Rejoinder Affidavit on 25.11.2023 reiterating the facts mentioned in the Original Application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite repeated applications and reminders over the years, the respondents failed to take timely action on his request for compassionate appointment. The counsel states that Appliant's family was left in a financially vulnerable situation following the death of his father in 1998, as his mother was illiterate and unable to immediately apply for the appointment. The applicant also emphasizes that the delay in processing his application is attributable to the administrative inaction, not any fault on his part. He points out that his case has been pending for a long period, despite the fact that compassionate appointments are intended to provide timely assistance to families in distress. Further, he argues that the existence of family pensions and agricultural land does not negate his need for employment.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment should be denied because his father died nearly 25 years ago and there has been no proper explanation for such a long delay in filing the application. They also point out that the applicant's family has been receiving a family pension of Rs. 11,930/- per month and owns agricultural land and a house, which shows that they are not in extreme financial distress. The counsel for the respondents also refers to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.10.1998, issued by the Government of India, which limits compassionate appointments to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota. Furthermore, in the restructuring that took place in 2002, the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk were abolished and a new cadre of Tax Assistants was introduced. The respondents emphasize that this is the only post on which compassionate appointments can now be made.
10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and pursued the material available on record.
Page No.411. It is reflected from the record that the applicant's request for compassionate appointment was made first time in 2000 i.e. after the death of his father in 1998 at that time applicant was a minor. However, despite the lapse of more than two decades, the respondents have not taken any substantive steps to address the applicant's plea. The primary objective of compassionate appointments is to provide timely financial relief to families of deceased employees facing destitution. In this case, it has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the applicant's family has been receiving a monthly family pension of Rs. 11,930/- and possesses agricultural land along with a house. Furthermore, the applicant has five siblings, two of whom are married daughters and another married son living separately.
12. Further, the restructuring of posts in 2002 has limited the scope of compassionate appointments to the post of Tax Assistant and appointments are further restricted to 5% of the direct recruitment quota. It is also evident from the record that the applicant's case was considered in 2016 and placed on a pending list due to the non-availability of vacancies.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., AIR 2023 SC 1467 = AIR Online 2023 SC 174 [03.03.2023] considered the various cases on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide the determination of claims for compassionate appointment. After referring the Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797, Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301, I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, and observed that the compassionate Page No.5 appointments are an exception to the regular hiring process, intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. It is not a right that can be claimed at any time, nor is it a form of recruitment. The goal is to help the family overcome the sudden financial crisis caused by the employee's death. Therefore, appointments should be made quickly as delays reduce the need for such help.
14. Since the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment is still under consideration for a future vacancy. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority among the respondents to decide the applicant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds after conducting an inquiry into his financial status at the time he applied for compassionate appointment upon attaining the age of majority and to pass a reasoned and speaking order, communicating the same to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As (Miscellaneous Applications), if any, are considered disposed of. The registry will take the necessary steps to remove the M.As. No order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil