Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ram Sewak Singh vs Union Of India : Through on 29 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.662 of 2012 MA No.564 of 2012 New Delhi this the 29th day of February, 2012 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) 1. Shri Ram Sewak Singh, S/o Shri Ram Badan Singh, Qr. No.E-81 F, Railway Colony, Rohtak. 2. Smt. Sheela Devi, D/o Shri Ram Sewak Singh, Qr. No.E-81 F, Railway Colony, Rohtak. .... Applicants ( By Advocate Ms. Meenu Mainee ) VERSUS Union of India : Through 1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. 3. Senior Section Engineer (W), Northern Railway, Rohtak. .. Respondents O R D E R (Oral)
MA No.564 of 2012 MA 564 of 2012 seeking leave to file the OA jointly by the two applicants having common cause of action and common relief, is allowed.
OA No.662 of 2012 By this Application, the applicants are seeking directions to the respondents to consider the applicant no.2 for compassionate appointment on account of applicant no.1 having been found completely unfit for any alternative job and retired under the applicable rules which, inter alia, provide for compassionate appointment to the ward of an employee having been retired on medical grounds in such cases.
2. The applicant no.1 Shri Ram Sewak Singhwas working as Chowkidar under Sr. Section Engineer (Works), Northern Railway Rohtak. He was declared medically unfit for service of the respondents. The applicant was accordingly retired on medical ground. Thereupon, he requested the respondents that his daughter, Smt. Sheela Devi, applicant no.2 be given appointment on compassionate ground in his place as per the applicable rules. The applicant has been informed by the Welfare Labour Inspector that one Shri Rahul Kumar has submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground claimed himself to be the grandson of the applicant no.1. The applicant no.1 has informed back the respondents that though he has adopted his grandson Shri Rahul Kumar but neither Rahul Kumar nor his mother Usha are living with the applicant no.1. His other daughter is living with the applicant no.1 and looking after for a long time. As a matter of fact, he has also executed a Will, whereby he bequeath all his assets to his daughter Smt. Sheela Devi upon her death. The applicants grievance is that their request for compassionate appointment to the applicant no.2 has not been given any consideration by the respondents. Hence, this Application seeking directions to the respondents.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents should consider the applicants request for compassionate appointment in accordance with their own rules and regulations on the subject. Accordingly, when a person seeks pre-mature retirement on medical grounds, it is open to him to seek compassionate appointment in his place to any of his wards. It is thus for the retired employee to state as to which of his ward be given compassionate appointment. It is not open to any one to come forward and claim for compassionate appointment without having been recommended by the retired employee. These matters need to be looked into by the respondents and take an appropriate decision in the matter. It may not be appropriate not to give any consideration to the legitimate request made by the retired employee in accordance with the applicable rules. Merely for the reason that somebody else has come forward claiming similar relief, such claim, in any case, has to be decided by the respondents and they cannot keep on sitting over the matter. Therefore, it has been strongly contended that let directions be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants prayer and inform whatever decision they take in the matter but this should be within a fixed time frame, as inaction of the respondents will in all probably operate to the detriment of the applicant no.1 who has been medically de-capacitated and de-categorized and has meager financial resources available for his survival.
4. I find force in the applicants contentions. These do not involve consideration of the case on merits. What has merely been sought is a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants request to which there may not be any plausible objection. Accordingly, this Application is disposed of at the admission stage by issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants claim for compassionate appointment of her daughter, applicant no.2, in accordance with the rules and inform the applicants of their decision through a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that there is no fetter on the powers of the respondents. It will be open to them to take such decision as they think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with the applicable rules on the subject.
5. The Application is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/