Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Jeevan George G.S vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 8 June, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NOS. 896/09, 897/09, 898/09, 904/09 & 905/09
Tuesday, this the 8th day of June, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
O.A. No. 896/2009
with
M.A. No. 1035/2009
Jeevan George G.S,
S/o. (late) T. George,
Pallivila Veedu, Puthenkanam,
Kattachalkuzhi P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM : 695 509 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
NEW DELHI
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033
3. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.),
Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
O.A. No. 897/2009
with
M.A. No. 1036/2009
Vaisakh G,
S/o. (late) N. Gopi Nair,
Edavilakathu Veedu,
Machel P.O., Malayinkil,
TRIVANDRUM : 695 571 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
NEW DELHI
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033
3. The Principal General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
O.A. No. 898/2009
Rajesh S,
S/o. (late) P. Sreekantan,
TC 55/1016, Vadekke Anantha Moola Veedu,
Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O.
TRIVANDRUM : 695 040 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
NEW DELHI
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033
3. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.),
Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
O.A. No. 904/2009
with
M.A. No. 1042/2009
Sreeju V.P.,
S/o. (late) G. Vijayan,
Valamoozhi, Nedumpa,
Panayamuttom P.O., Nedumangad,
TRIVANDRUM : 695 561 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, NEW DELHI
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033
3. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.),
Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
O.A. No. 905/2009
with
M.A. No. 1043/2009
G. Ratheesh,
S/o. (late) N. Gopinathan Nair,
TC.6/134, 'PUNARTHAM',
PTPA-29, Chittattinkara,
Vattiyoorkavu P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM : 695 509 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
NEW DELHI
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033
3. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.),
Office of the Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kerala Telecommunications,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : 695 033 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
The original applications having been heard on 03.06.10, this Tribunal on
08.06.10 delivered the following :
O R D E R
HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Having common grounds, all these OAs were heard together. The applicants in these O.As prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider them for appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme which was in force as on dates of demise of the fathers of the applicants.
2. Facts in brief :
O.A. NO. 896/2009 : The father of the applicant passed away on 23.08.2004 while in service as a Telecom Mechanic. A representation dated 01.11.2004 was submitted to the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. The request for appointment on compassionate ground made by the applicant was rejected vide letter No. Rectt/9-242/2007 dated 20.02.08 / 10.03.08 on the ground that as per the new policy guidelines of BSNL Corporate conveyed under letter dated 27.06.2007, the applicant's case was not found fit.
O.A. NO. 897/2009 : The applicant's father passed away on 25.06.2001 while in service as Telecom Mechanic. A representation dated 06.09.2001 for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the applicant to the respondents. The request of the applicant was rejected vide letter No. ST-824/2001/8 dated 15.12.2007 on the ground that as per the new policy guidelines of BSNL Corporate conveyed under letter dated 27.06.2007, the applicant's case was not found fit.
O.A. NO. 898/2009 : The father of the applicant passed away on 01.06.2006 while in service as Telecom Mechanic. An application for appointment on compassionate ground was made to the respondents, the copy of which is not presently available with the applicant. The request of the applicant was turned down vide letter No. Rectt/9-308/200 dated 29.11.2008 on the ground that as per the new policy guidelines of BSNL Corporate conveyed under letter dated 27.06.2007, the applicant's case was not found fit.
O.A. NO. 904/2009 : The applicant's father expired on 12.11.2006 while in service as a regular mazdoor. A representation dated 04.01.2007 was submitted for appointment on compassionate ground. The request of the applicant was turned down vide letter No. Rectt/9-284/2007 dated 20.02.08 / 10.03.08 on the ground that as per the new policy guidelines of BSNL Corporate conveyed under letter dated 27.06.2007, the applicant's case was not found fit.
O.A. NO. 905/2009 : The father of the applicant died on 02.12.2002 while in service as Sub Inspector / Operations (Telecom Mechanic). A representation dated 27.12.2002 was submitted to the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. The request of the applicant was turned down vide letter No. Rectt/9-256/2006 dated 20.02.08 / 10.03.08 on the ground that as per the new policy guidelines of BSNL Corporate conveyed under letter dated 27.06.2007, the applicant's case was not found fit.
3. The applicants submitted that the rejection of their claim for appointment on compassionate ground to the extent it denies consideration in terms of the scheme which was in force as on the dates of demise of applicants' father is arbitrary. They had submitted applications for appointment on compassionate ground when the compassionate appointment scheme in force was the one in operation from 1998 to 27.06.2007. The respondents are not justified in rejecting the case of the applicants on the basis of a later scheme which was not in force at the material time. Therefore, the order of rejection of their claims for appointment on compassionate ground is illegal. The delay, if any, in considering their applications before the later scheme came into force cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of the applicants. The applicants are unemployed and are living in penurious condition. Therefore, the O.As should be allowed.
4. The respondents contested the O.As. It was submitted on their behalf that the O.As are highly belated. There are no valid grounds for condonation of delay. The scheme for compassionate appointment were formulated by the Government of India in 1958. The guidelines governing the provisions for appointment under compassionate appointment scheme are issued by the Government of India from time to time. The revised consolidated instructions in respect of appointment on compassionate ground under the Central Government issued on 9th October, 1998 were in force in the BSNL till 27.06.2007 when weightage point system was introduced to bring uniformity in assessing the indigent condition of the family. According to the weightage system a case with 55 or more net points shall be, prima facie, treated as eligible for consideration by the BSNL Corporate office. The applications for compassionate appointments submitted by the applicants were rejected by the BSNL Corporate office by applying the new weightage system. The rejection of the request of the applicants was strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the competent authority after the rules issued by the Government of India and the judgements of the Apex Court prevalent at the point of time. Basically, there is no difference between the earlier scheme and the present scheme except the weightage point system for assessing the indigent condition of the family of the deceased Government servant. Appointments on compassionate ground can be given only to the dependent of the Government servant who dies in harness and who is retired on medical ground leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood subject to a limit of 5% of the direct recruitment quota in any Group 'B' or Group 'C' posts in an year. The applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the applicants were rejected as in overall assessments all the families of the deceased employees were not found living in indigent condition as per the new weightage point system. As the respondents have acted as per the rules and regulations laid down on the subject, the O.As filed by the applicants are devoid of any merit and the same should be dismissed.
5. Arguments were heard and documents perused.
6. The Misc. Applications No. 1035/09, 1036/09, 1042/09 and 1043/09 filed in OA Nos. 896/09, 897/09, 904/09 and 905/09 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed for the reasons stated therein.
7. The simple issue for decision in these O.As is whether the applications submitted by the applicants for appointment on compassionate ground should be considered in the light of the scheme that was in force before 27.06.2007 or after that date. This issue was dealt with in T.A. No. 128/08, Jinse E.J. vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Postal Telecommunication & Ors., decided by this Tribunal. In the said O.A., the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571, was relied upon. The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted as follows :
"26. Finally in the fact situation of this case, Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 1-8-1999, in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar Branch, passed away. The respondent, widow of Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant Bank on 5-2-2000 under the scheme which was formulated in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 4-8-
2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of the deceased is Rs. 5855 only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by late Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water."
The Apex Court held that the scheme for compassionate appointment as on the date of demise of the individual is to be followed.
8. The operative part of the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 128 of 2008 is reproduced as under :
"9. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The law on the subject has been crystallized by the Apex Court vide the decision in SBI cases referred to above. As such, irrespective of the character of the new scheme - liberal or rigid, in the instant case, it is only the old scheme that ought to have been applied. In other words, the case of the applicant ought to have been considered along with the 79 cases from out of which 62 cases were recommended. In all probability, the applicant having applied only on 11th September, 2006, the case could not be considered in the meeting which was held immediately thereafter, i.e. on 4th October, 2006.
10. In view of the above, the T.A. is allowed. Annexure A-8 order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the same norms and parameters with which earlier, 79 cases were considered on 4th October, 2006, and with due comparison with other cases, decision in that regard, arrived at. If the applicant is found to be entitled to appointment, he may be accommodated against any of the future vacancies. In case the applicant cannot be granted any compassionate appointment, he be accordingly informed with reasons thereof. This drill shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "
9. The scheme for compassionate appointment is a welfare scheme meant to help the family of the Government employees who die in harness leaving their families in penurious hardship. Beneficiary schemes are to be implemented without rigidity. The respondents have stated that the compassionate appointment scheme of 1998 and that of 2007 are one and the same. In the later scheme, a weightage point system is introduced for the purpose of assessing the indigent condition of the family concerned in a uniform manner. The plea of the applicants is that their case should be considered in the light of the former scheme on the ground that, because that was the scheme which was in force at the material point of time, i.e. when the employees died in harness. If there is any delay in considering their applications before the new scheme is introduced, it cannot be attributed to any lapse or negligence on the part of the applicants. The decision of the Apex Court supports the demand that their applications for compassionate appointment should be considered under the old scheme. The legal position as well as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, the O.As deserve to be allowed.
10. The above O.As are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the applicants for appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme formulated in the year 1998 which was in force on the dates of demise of the Government employees concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 8th June, 2010)
K. GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE K THANKAPPAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
cvr.