Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Angammal vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 27 April, 2023
OA.01447/2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01447/2018
Dated Thursday the 27th day of April Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
S.Angammal,
D/o.K.Andal,
residing at Door No.44,
Kavikuil Nagar,
Third Cross, Sennaiyampettai,
Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s.M.Gnanasekar
Vs
Union of India represented by
the Director of School Education,
Puducherry. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr.R.Syed Mustafa.
O.A.No.1447 of 2018
2
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
a. to set aside the orders (1) No.2451 /DSE / Estt.I / D6/2017 dated 28.05.2018 and (2) No.00710 / DSE / Estt.I /D6 / 2016 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the respondent and;
b. direct the respondent to appoint the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate appointment to which she is found eligible and suitable with all consequential monetary and other service benefit.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:
The applicant has contented it is third round of litigation. The applicant has requested for compassionate appointment consequently to the death of her mother on 03.04.2004 was rejected on the ground that the applicant is the married daughter and she did not furnished the certificate of a pass in SSLC. The applicant has contented that the applicant's mother who was working as a Conductress in Government Primary School, Mettupalayam. She had died on 03.03.2004 in harness by performing her duty. The applicant has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.12.2007 and on 08.01.2008,28.04.2010 and 07.03.2011. However, the respondents have rejected the applicant on 13.12.2013 on the ground it has been submitted beyond time limit as the same has to be submitted within five years from the date of death of the Government servant. Hence, the application submitted by the applicant cannot be considered. Therefore, the applicant has again submitted her representation on 10.02.2016 since there is no O.A.No.1447 of 2018 3 reply. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by O.A.No.705 of 2016 upon merits by order dated 04.04.2016. This Tribunal is disposed of O.A.No.705 of 2016 as admission stage by giving direction to the respondents to consider the candidature for compassionate appointment in the light of the pleas vis-a-vis the rules and accordingly pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the respondents by order dated 14.06.2016 has complied the order of the Tribunal however, on the ground of requirement of educational qualification and the same is rejected. Hence, by filing O.A.No.1199 of 2016 the applicant has again approached this Tribunal to challenge the order dated 14.06.2016 upon hearing both sides by its order dated 24.08.2017 this Tribunal has directed the applicant to approach the authority to make a requests by submitting adequate evidence to prove her claim of dependency. Since she acquired the educational qualification of SSLC and directed the respondents to place the matter before next meeting of the Screening Committee and thereafter take an appropriate provision of compassionate ground scheme. Though the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents authority have turned down the said requested by their order dated 28.05.2018 on the ground that though, she acquired SSLC, no evidence proving her dependency on her mother at the time of death has not been furnished as per this Tribunal order.
Being aggrieved the applicant filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice the respondents have appeared through their counsels and filed a detailed reply and opposing the claim on the ground that since she has not been any proof in respect of her dependency at the O.A.No.1447 of 2018 4 time of the death of the Government employee and prayed for dismissal of OA.
4. Heard Learned Counsel M/s.M.Gnanasekar for applicant and Learned Counsel Mr.R.Syed Mustafa for respondent. Perused the records and relevant documents.
5. When matter has been taken up for hearing at that time the applicant has submitted that the certificate is already issued on 20.03.2019 in respect of her dependency and the same has been admitted by the respondent in their counter at para 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that though the said certificate has been received by the respondents however, the applicant's claim has not been considered in accordance with the directions of this Tribunal in O.A.No.705 of 2016.
6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks a liberty to submit the comprehensive representation along with necessary documents to the respondents authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of order. Permission granted. The applicant is at liberty to submit the comprehensive representation along with necessary documents to prove her dependency to the respondent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order and the respondent authority are directed to consider the said requests of the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of said comprehensive representation.
7. OA is disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 27.04.2023 IG