Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Rai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)MPHT261
Author: Shantanu Kemkar
Bench: Shantanu Kemkar
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (CAT), dated March 13, 2001, Original Application No. 102/2001.
2. The petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He alleges that his father Suresh Kumar Rai was Senior Loco Inspector, Central Railways, Bhopal. In Bhopal Gas Tragedy 1984, his father was affected and suffered Hypertension and Diabities etc. Consequently, he was treated at Bombay and many other hospitals. Since he was not keeping good health, he requested for change of his post/cadre and providing alternative job, vide communication dated 9-2-1991. Consequently, his father sought voluntary retirement on the ground of ill-health from 31-3-1997. The petitioner preferred repeated representations for compassionate appointment. However, he was not appointed. Consequently, he filed Original Application No. 513/99, which was disposed of by order dated 7-10-1999 directing the petitioner to file representation and the respondents to dispose of the same within six weeks by speaking order. The respondents rejected the representation and the petitioner filed Original Application No. 102/2001.
3. The respondents submitted that the petitioner's father had not been medically de-categorised. Rather he opted for voluntary retirement for personal reasons, therefore, his son could not be given compassionate appointment. The Original Application No. 863/1990 by the petitioner's father, sought declaration from the CAT that he was MIC Gas Victim, therefore, entitled to all benefits in the event of his death or being found medically unfit, was withdrawn on 13-5-1999. The CAT considered the matter and did not agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner, therefore, rejected the application by the impugned order.
4. Counsel for the parties heard. Record perused.
5. Shri R.L. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's father suffered from Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy. In support of this contention, reference is made to order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Disaster Claims Tribunal, dated 12-4-1994, whereby compensation of Rs. 58,800/- was awarded various medical prescriptions and Committee decision dated 24-4-1989 (Annexure P-4), It is submitted that the petitioner's father was a medically unfit case. Reference is also made to letter dated 23-2-2001 (Annexure P-5) providing that for retirement on medical/health ground, the dependent would be offered appointment on retirement. Since the petitioner's father could not perform the duty due to ill-health, he sought retirement on health ground by communication dated 31-3-1997 (Annexure P-6).
6. Shri S.K. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Railways, submits that the petitioner's father may have been awarded compensation by Bhopal Gas Disaster Claims Tribunal, but that would not make him medically decategorised, The decision of the Committee dated 24-4-1989 (Annexure P-4) does not show that the petitioner's father is medically decategorised. It simply records that in the event of petitioner's father becoming unsuitable to continue in the job or he is retired compulsorily or voluntarily, he shall be treated as medically unfit railway employee. Moreover, the Committee has not declared him medically decategorised nor it has jurisdiction. Same is the position of communication dated 23-2-1991 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Subordinate Officer of the Railways, who is not competent to suggest/offer compassionate appointment on behalf of the Railways. The petitioner's father sought voluntary retirement on 19-12-1996, but withdrew due to improvement of his health, thereafter, submitted again on 31-3-1997. The claim that he is medically unfit because of Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy, can not survive after withdrawing the O.A. No. 863/90.
7. Giving consideration to the whole matter, we find that the Railways provide for appointment on compassionate ground provided the railway employee has been medically decategorised. For this purpose, the Committee of the Doctor is constituted. In this case, the petitioner's father may not be keeping good health, but he had not been medically decalegoriscd at any stage by the Railways. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground can not be sustained.
8. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Costs on parties.