Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Longia Devi vs M/O Defence on 22 September, 2022
a | Q,4/850/1419/2016 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA O.A/350/1419/2016 Date of Order: 22.09.2022 MA/239/2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms: Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member 1, Longia Devi, aged about 55 years, wife of Late Mahesh Manjhi, residing at Village - Kumarpara, Ishapore, Post Office Ishapore-Nawabganj, District 24 Parganas (North),Kolkata-743144. 2. Rama Shankar Majhi, aged about 35 years, residing at Village Kumarpara, Ishapore, Post Office Ishapore Nawabganj, District - 24 Parganas (North),Kolkata 743144, - --Applicants Versus 1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence and Production), South Block, New Delhi - 110 011. 2. The Director General of Ordnance, Directorate of Ordnance (Cooperation & Services), Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, 10-A, - Saheed Khudiram Bese Road, Kolkata - 700 001. 3. The General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore, a Unit 'under Yantra India Limited at Nagpur, a Government of India Enterprise, Post Office - Ichapore, Nawabganj, Police Station - Noapara, District - North 24 Parganas, PIN-743 144. 4. Yantra India Limited, DPSU, a Government of India Enterprise, Ministry of Defence, at Nagpur, Maharastra : 440 021. --Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. P. C. Das, Counsel Ms. T. Maity, counsel For The Respondent(s): Ms. P. Goswami, counsel | ORDER(CORAL 'Per: Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J):
This matter is taken up Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the 2 . 0.A/350/1419/2016 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved and is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties.
2. The applicant in this O.A has challenged an order dated 23.08.2016 whereby and where under the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no. 2 has been rejected arbitrarily by applying the DOPT OM dated 05.05.2003, which was not applicable on 23.08.2016, being already discontinued by virtue of introduction of DOPT fresh OM dated 26.07.2012, and the observations that the family has survived for almost 9 years after the death of the government servant which \itself is an adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence.
8. The prayer made inter alia in this application are as under:
"a) Leave be granted to move one single application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1987 as the applicants have got a common grievances and both of them are similarly circumstanced persons;
b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office order dated 23.08.2016 issued by the General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore by which the claim of the applicants for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant No. 2 has been rejected on the ground of terminal benefit and pensionary benefit which is clearly against the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Sujit "Kumar Dutta -Vs- UCO Bank and in W.P.C.T. No. 18 of 2018 in the case of Indranil Chakraborty -vs- Union of India & Ors. and in the case of Angurbala Maity & Ors.-Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. and in the case of Rajendralal Biswas Vs-State of West Bengal & Ors. and also against the latest decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. -vs- M. Mahesh Kumar reported-in AIR 2015 (SC), Page 2411 being Annexure A-7 of this original application;
c) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office order dated 03.08.2015 issued by the General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore being Annexure A'5 of this original application.
d) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondents authority to grant compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant No. 2 on the ground of died in harness of his father before retirement and the entire family members are fighting and they are only depend upon a meagre amount of family pension which is receiving by their mother and unless the appointment letter is issued in favour of the applicant No. 2 the family ., a : 3 0.A/350/1419/2016 --
members of deceased employee will not alive anymore as they are on the edge of starvation;
e) To pass an appropriate order directing the respondent authority to consider. the case of the applicants in respect of grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant No. 2 in any suitable post to save the distress condition of the family of the deceased employee."
4, . The order impugned in the present O.A is extracted to the extant relevant and germane to the issue as under:
"And whereas, the Board of Officers (BoO) had also observed that the present case was considered in 03 (Three) consecutive years previously ic. |
- 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Board of Officers had awarded 37, 37 and 58 points on a 100 points scale in those years respectively in accordance with the instructions issued vide DOP&T O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (1)) dated 09- 10-1998 and Instruction issued by the Ministry of Defence vide II) No _-19(4)/824-99/1998-D(Lab) dated 09-03-2001 and Revised Instruction issued by the Ministry of Defence vide F.No. 19(3)/2009/D(Lab) dated 22-01-2010
- and 14-05-2010 (in 3rd Occasion after implementation of 6th CPC). However, | the instant case was not recommended for appointment as there were more deserving cases. The cut-off points in those years were 54, 50 and 69 respectively. Accordingly, the case was finally closed in terms of DOP&T O.M. No. 14014/19/2002-Estt (D) dated 05-05-2003. The fact of the case was intimated to the applicant vide this office letter No. 1630/3/LB/Rectt. Dated 28-10-2010.
And whereas, it is emphasized that employment assistance on compassionate ground is only a scheme under the central Govt., the object of _ which is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family from immediate financial destitution and to help it meet the . emergency. Further, due to ceiling limit of 5% of the total Direct | Recruitment Quota posts for making appointment on compassionate ground, oo os 4 - 0.A/350/1419/2016:
"it is not possible to accommodate each and every person by offering an appointment on compassionate ground. It is natural that in such a situation, there will always 'be some, who are left out due to ceiling limit of 5% of the total Direct Recruitment Quota. | And whereas, in the instant case employment on compassionate _ ground is not.an exigency as family had survived for almost 09 years after | death of the govt. servant, The very fact that the family had been able to manage somehow all these years indicates adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence.
And therefore, after considering the matter in totality, it is informed that the case of the applicant secured 53 points in a 100 points scale whereas | the cut-off point is 57 points. As such, it is regretted to intimate that the case of the applicant after due consideration as per direction of the Hon'ble CAT, Calcutta Bench, vide its order cited under reference is found 'not fit' for grant of compassionate appointment."
5. Ld. counsel for the applicant at hearing would cite the following decisions to argue that terminal benefits ought not to have been taken into 'consideration to decide the case of compassionate appointment;
La. Counsel would argue that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar AIR 2015 SC 24117 and various other decisions of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and orders passed by this 'Tribunal, the terminal benefits and pension of a deceased employee cannot be taken into consideration to oust his ward from the zone of consideration in the case of a compassionate appointment. It is alleged that "the respondents have failed to consider the plight of the widow who along .
with her son is finding it difficult to eke out a livelihood.
ane) 7 a | 5 co 0.A/350/1419/2016 In Canara Bank v. M, Mahesh Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court _has held as under:
"15. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that since the respondent's family is getting family pensiori and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in consider the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may Keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of - majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains the majority.
The Hon'ble Court therein had referred to Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors. (2000) 6 SCC 493 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had held the following'-
"13. ...... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated-with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family -- this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the 'death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that - monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." _ ' Ld. Counsel would also refer to a few more decisions extracted "hereunder with emphasis: | WPCT No. 18 of 2013 Indranil Chakraborty v. Union of India & ors.
where the Original Application on being dismissed on the ground of ~ limitation, Hon'ble High Court had allowed benefit to a family which had received terminal benefits of more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. Relevant extract of the said judgement being as under:
" The relevant extracts from the said written communication dated 21s February, 2002 are set out hereunder:
"It has also been seen that the following terminal benefits have been paid/are payable to you apart from the other attributes of your family which has been considered by the Board before arriving at the conclusion as mentioned above:
i) Family pension -- Rs. 2464/- p.m.
ii) Terminal benefits - More than 10 Lakh
iii) Dependent family members wife and a son
iv) Immovable property - A pacca Roof house"
é) a . «6 0:A/350/1419/2016 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India & Ors. reported in 2000 (6) SCC 493 specifically observed as - follows:-
"But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden' jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of _the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situations."
_ In the instant case it has been specifically submitted on behalf of the . petitioner that the financial condition of the family of the deceased family is penurious and immediate financial assistance is required for the survival of the family of the deceased family.
In the case of Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. reported in 2005 (10)SCC 289 has also held: , "6, The Scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules."
Following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India & ors. and Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. (supra), we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner herein for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee received terminal benefits and owing.a pacca roof which are occupied by the members of the deceased family.
Nothing has been produced before us wherefrom it would appear that family of the deceased employee has sufficient income to maintain themselves.
For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was wrongfully and -
- illegally rejected by the respondents without proper and valid grounds.
Therefore, we quash the decision of the authorities which was communicated by the Dy. General Manager by the written communication dated 21st February, 2002.
For the identical reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal also cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.
We, therefore, direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 3 to issue appropriate order consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to a suitable vacant post without any further delay but positively within a period of four week from the date of communication of this order upon taking note of our aforesaid observations and findings."
Sujit Kumar Datta v. United Commercial Bank reported in 2011 (4) CHN (CAL) 29, where having considered the decisions of Balbir Kaur (supra) 7 OQ 7 0.A/350/1419/2016 and Govind Prakash Verma (supra) the Hon'ble High Court had held that personal assets owned by family members not to be taken into consideration in the matter of compassionate appointment.
Smt. Angurbala Maity & anr. v. State of West Bengal & ors. 2012 (1) CLJ (Cal) rendered on 17.1.2012, where Hon'ble High Court had held:-
"Receiving of family pension and possession of a_piece of agricultural land cannot disentitle the applicant No. 1 to. pursue an application on.
compassionate ground for appellant No. 2."
Order passed in O.A. No. 350/01288/2016 by this Tribunal on 1.11.2019 where having noted the previous decision, the decisions enumerate .¥ supra that Indranil Chakraborty (supra), Angurbala Maity & anr. (supra), Sujit Kumar Datta (supra), Balbir Kaur (supra) etc. and having noted that . terminal benefits of Rs. 7,63,809/-, Rs. 15,51,865/- and Rs. 13,85,688/- etc. have been granted compassionate appointment while the applicant was rejected as terminal benefits of Rs. 8,57,359/- was paid, the speaking order was quashed and the matter was remanded back for an appropriate consideration. |
6. The respondents by way of reply have assured that the case of applicant No.2 will be considered against the vacancies of 2017-2018. Therefore, the present application is purely premature and/or at the interlocutory stage and as such, the instant original application may be rejected on this ground itself, which establishes the fact that respondents were willing to consider the matter further and the cases is not yet closed.
In regard to the applicability of Canara Bank & Anr vs Mahesh Kumar reported in AIR 2015 (SC) page 2411, respondents have stated that,
- the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, the respondents ought to have - considered the case of compassionate appointments as per scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the concerned employee.
7 ; 8 0.4/350/1419/2016 In consonance with the said Supreme Court's Order, it is stated _ that the respondents had to consider the applications for employment on compassionate grounds only within the parameters and terms and conditions incorporated in the Scheme laid down for that purpose i.e. "payment of terminal benefits and retiral benefits of the family as per . paragraph 16 (c) as well as annexure below paragraph 17 of the DOP&T O.M. No.14014/6/94 Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 which was in vogue at the tame of death of the employee. In this connection, the respondents would like to rely on the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the al \'2\, cases of General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. reported in / (2004) 7 SCC 271 and Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265, wherein the Supreme Court held that | while considering compassionate appointment retiral/terminal benefits :
should be taken into consideration and cannot be ignored. Further, the
- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646 - Union Bank of India & Ors. -vs M.T. Latheesh; Civil Appeal No. 409 of 2007 - State Bank of India & Ors. -vs- Jaspal Kaur decided on 01-02-2007 and in (2007) 2S8cCC (L&S) 92 - State Bank of India & Anr. -vs- Somvir Singh held in clear terms that the authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and retiral benefits, the investments and monthly family income including the family pension for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family had
- been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. Therefore, the said dicta of the Supreme Court are equally applicable in the instant case also.
Hence, as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Canara Bank &- Anr. - vs- M. Mahesh Kumar supra, the respondents herein have rightly considered the case of the applicants in accordance with the guidelines and rules in vogue at the time of death of the Govt. Employee.
9 0,.A/350/1419/2016
7. Ld. counsels were heard and records were perused. --
8. In view of the fact that respondents have themselves agreed to reconsider the matter by way of successive meeting of the Board of Officers, respondents are directed to place the matter before the Board of Officers as and when the same would meet and based on the report of the Board of Officer to consider the case in the light of the cited decisiong as extracted above, to pass appropriate order within 3 months.
9. The present OA accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.
M.A 239/2022 filed by the respondents for addition of party respondents due to change of scenario, consequently stands disposed of.
\ _ :
(Bidisha Banerjee) Member (J) $s