Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Velmurugan vs M/O Communications on 31 March, 2023
oe 1 OA 131/2021 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00131/2021 Dated the 3|s¥ day of Masel. Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM: HON'BLE MS. MANJULA DAS, Member (J) HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A) K.Velmurugan, S/o. (late) P. K. Perumal, No. 2/201, Ambedkar Street, Odakanallur Village & Post, Orathur, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore Dist. Pin 608201. By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy Vs 1.Union of India, rep by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002. 2.The Assistant Director (Rectt), O/o. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002. 3.The Senior Superintendent, Railway Mail Service "T" Division, Tiruchirapalli 620001. By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan .. Applicant ....Respondents 2 OA 131/2021 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Member(J)) This Original Application has been filed challenging the scheme for compassionate appointment dt. 28.09.2020, particularly the variables at paras
(ix) and (x) as well as the impugned order dt. 08.12.2020 by which the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected and for direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds as Postal Assistant and grant all consequential benefits.
2, Heard Mr. R. Malaichamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Nagarajan, learned counsel for respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
i, The applicant's father PK.Perumal died in harness on 24.01.1997 while he was working as Mail Man. The applicant's mother submitted a representation dt. 29.04.1997 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
ii. The applicant did make a request to the authority for consideration but his case was rejected during the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC in short) for the year 2015. It was stated by the applicant that the CRC for the year 2020 also, his case was rejected vide order dt. 08.12.2020 passed by respondent no. ie., Senior Superintendent, RMS T Division, Tiruchirapalli.
lil. Having been qualified for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), the applicant did make a request for compassionate appointment vide representations dt. 13.07.2007 and 20.01.2010 and the same was rejected vide 3 OA 131/2021 letter dt, 01.02.2010.
iv. It was submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC in short) was not convened from the year 2000 onwards till 2011 as several Court cases were pending before various courts in connection with compassionate appointment cases which was also admitted by learned counsel for respondents.
¥. The status of the applicant's case was very well intimated to him regarding the Relative Merit Points (RMP) earned by him. vi. The Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Posts has framed a scheme dt. 20.01.2010 for compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee held in the year 2015 along with other applications for compassionate appointment based on a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family ie., family status, family income etc., taking into consideration its assets, liabilities and all other relevant factors such as the presence of earning member, size of the family, age of the children, the essential needs of the family etc., by allocating Relative Merit Points to various attributes based on a hundred point scale. vii. When his case was again placed before the CRC convened on 28.07.2015 but could not be recommended for the same reason ie., due to less indigent condition comparing to other deserving candidates according to the Relative Merit Point system as per merit, However, the CRC decided to take up "not recommended" cases of CRC-2015 and place them before the next CRC and
4 OA 131/202] examine the cases on merit along with the fresh cases received subject to the availability of vacancies under RRR quota.
4. The respondents disputed the statement made in para 19 of the pleadings in the OA and stated in the reply statement that in fact, the CRC held for the vacancy year 2016-17 held in December 2019/January 2020 and examined the applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds received during the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.06.2017 along with the "not recommended" cases of CRC-2015. The Circle Relaxation Committee convened for the year 2016-17 recommended the compassionate appointment cases placed before the committee based on the merit ie., the cases with higher relative merit points / more indigent condition compared to cases of all other candidates considered and rejected the less indigent cases including the applicant's case on the following grounds :-
i, Non-availability of Direct Recruitment Vacancy in the respective cadre under RRR quota ii. Less indigent as per Relative Merit Points under RRR quota.
5. It is noted that the applicant's case in fact was considered by CRC held in the years 2015 and December 2019 / January 2020 along with compassionate appointment cases of the other candidates. However, the two committees did not recommend the case of the applicant along with other cases as much as the recommended candidates by the CRC had secured higher relative merit points compared to the applicant and they were more indigent compared to him as per 5 OA 131/2021 the Relative Merit Point system and the permissible 5% ceiling of Direct Recruitment quota vacancies prescribed for compassionate appointment,
6. According to the learned counsel for applicant, para (ix) and (x) of the newly framed scheme dt. 28.09.2020 are arbitrary in so far as the applicant is concerned,
7. In reply to the above argument, learned counsel for respondents, Mr. S. Nagarajan submitted that the Postal Directorate vide letter dt. 28.09.2020 reviewed the already existing procedure for compassionate appointments and the Relative Merit Points for assigning weightage to various attributes of the applications for compassionate appointment keeping in view of the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time and issued the revised Relative Merit Points to be applied for consideration of the cases of compassionate appointments.
8. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the Relative Merit Points (RMP) for variables like immediate relief and Physically / Mentally challenged family members prescribed at para (ix) and (x) are applicable only for the applications considered by any CRC convened on or after 01.10.2020 and not for the already closed cases, as instructed vide Directorate letter dt, 28.09.2020.
9. Now, we have in hand the scheme dt. 28.09.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts. The paras (1x) and (x) therein are extracted hereunder :-
"(ix) Points for immediate relief (Max 12 Points) 6 OA 131/2021 5N Age of cases Points 1 less than 03 years old 12 2 03 years to less than 06 years 8 3 06 years to less than 09 years 6 4 09 years to less than 12 years 4 5 12 years to less than 15 years 2 6 15 years and above 0 Note: To be verified from service records and certified by the Divisional/Regional/Circle Authorities. Age of the case will be worked out from the date of death of employee/retirement on medical grounds. In case a minor applies for compassionate appointment after becoming major, the period of the case will be counted from the date on which he became a major.
(x) Physically/Mentally Challenged and chronic disease Cases (Max 10 Points) SN |Description Points If the applicant is a Person with Disability 10 2 If the dependent family member (other than the [6 applicant) of the deceased is PWD Ifthe dependent family member of the deceased 13 is suffering from AIDS, Cancer, Kidney failure, heart attack, liver cirrhosis, Organ ! transplantation of liver/heart/kidney, Alzheimer.
tus Note: The disability as defined by DoP&T for reservation for persons with Disabilities from time to time for appointment in Central Government will be ensured. Related certificates to be obtained accordingly."
10. In the above scenario, it is easily discernable that clause (x) of the impugned scheme dt. 28.09.2020 is not at all applicable in the case of the applicant since it is for "Physically/Mentally Challenged and chronic disease cases". The clause (ix) as indicated above is in general ie., in rem and not in personam. Because the said above clauses in the scheme is putting the applicant in adverse position, he tried to establish his case on the ground that the 7 OA. 131/2021 department delayed in conducting the CRC from the year 2000 onwards. The said scheme was introduced on 28.09.2020 and prior to that on two occasions, though the applicant's case was considered, it was not recommended. Hence, in view of the above two grounds mentioned hereinabove, the applicant failed to establish his case. Accordingly, the submission made by the learned counsel for applicant for setting aside the scheme dt. 28.09.2020 could not be accepted.
11. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment by way of formulating the scheme by the Government to enable the bereaved family to tide over the immediate financial crisis due to the sudden death of the bread winner and to relieve the family of the deceased employee from the financial constraints. Therefore, immediate relief to the grieving family is necessitated.
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration in the present case and for coming to a logical conclusion, we need to ascertain the very vital point in respect of the time period to warrant the applicability of the scheme which provided compassionate appointment.
13. Here, the applicant's father late PK.Perumal died in harness on 24.01.1997. Thereafter on 29.04.1997, the wife of the deceased employee made an application to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds. However, after ten years, the applicant submitted an application dt. 13.07.2007 and 20.01.2010 for Government job on compassionate grounds under 5% Direct Recruitment quota. Thereafter aiso in the year 2015 and December 2019 / January 2020 the case of the applicant was placed before the CRC. On all the 1} § OA 131/2021 occasions, the applicant was not coming to a position to secure the qualifying points under the RMP system. Hence, he could not be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme under the 5% Direct Recruitment quota.
14. After detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs abreast taking into consideration the scheme for compassionate appointment -- Relative Merit Point scheme dt. 28.09.2020, we find that there is no merit in the case.
15. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
oe ® "a