Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Smt. Neelam Sharma W/O Late Shri Deep ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its ... on 16 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No.1003/PB/2009.
Chandigarh: this 16th day of December, 2010.
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
Smt. Neelam Sharma w/o late Shri Deep Kumar Sharma, CL01016, ex-permanent and confirmed employee of Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL), Sector 72, Phase-VIII, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160 071 and resident in Flat No. 2395, SCL Society, Sector 70, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160 071.
..Applicant.
(By: Ms. Jyoti Chaudhary, advocate).
Versus
1. Union of India (UOI) through its Secretary, Department of Space (DOS) Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560 094.
2. Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL) Sector 72, Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar (Mohali), District S.A.S. Nagar 160 059, Punjab through its Director.
.Respondents.
(By: Shri Brajesh Mittal, Advocate)
O R D E R
(By: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:-
i)That to quash all the illegal unknown orders of the respondents vide which the compassionate appointment to the blood relations of the deceased employees in the Respondent no. 2 as per previous precedent set by the Respondent no. 2 according to a list Annexed as A/2 has not been given by the respondents to the applicants second son, namely, Shri Vaneet Kumar Sharma under the provision of CMDs office order no. 114 dated 30.10.84 (A/1).
ii)That to direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the applicants second son namely, Shri Vaneet Kumar Sharma under the provision of CMDs office order no. 114, dated 30.10.84 (A/1) at the earliest and also not to discriminate the applicant according to the list of previous precedents (A/2).
iii)That to direct the respondents to release a payment of Death Benevolent Fund of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the applicant with penal interest @ 18% from 1.1.2006 onwards to the date of realization on the basis of Memo. of Understanding (MOU) dated 7.8.2001 (A/3).
iv)That to direct the respondents to release a payment of funeral expenses of Rs. 2500/- to the applicant with penal interest @ 18% from 1.10.2006 onwards to the date of realization on the basis of Memo. of Understanding (MOU) dated 7.8.2001 (A/3).
v)That to direct the respondents to pay reasonable and genuine compensation and damages to the applicant and her family members for the stress and strain caused to them due to illegal acts and conducts of the respondents from 22.11.2006 onwards to date of realization.
2. The facts as projected by the applicant are that her husband expired on 21.11.2006 after joining the newly constituted SCL Society which was constituted on 1.9.2006. On 13.12.2006, she submitted a request letter to Respondent no. 2 seeking appointment to her second son namely, Vaneet Kumar Sharma in SCL Society on compassionate grounds. On 20.3.2007,she submitted representation to Respondent no. 2 for payment of Death Benevolent Fund amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- and also funeral expenses of Rs. 2500/- as per previous precedent. She again submitted a request on 24.2.2008 and reminders were also submitted, but she received no reply to the same. The respondents supplied certain information to her under RTI Act in January, 2009. She has further stated that she has been discriminated against inasmuch as Respondent no. 2 paid Rs. 2,00, 000/- to the wife of late Shri Ram Bhagat Grover who expired on 9.1.2009, under the Death Benevolent Fund benefit, but has not given her any amount. Hence this OA.
3. The applicant has also filed an MA no. 958/09 for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
4. The respondents have stated in their reply that the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation. They have further stated the husband of the applicant expired on 21.11.2006 and the applicant moved a representation dated 13.12.2006 seeking employment for her second son, Sh. Vaneet Kumar Sharma, on compassionate grounds. According to the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA before this Tribunal after a period of 2 years from the date of arising of cause of action.
5. They have further stated that consequent upon the registration of the Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL) Society in 2006 under the Govt. of India, Department of Space (DOS), all the existing terms and conditions/Memorandum of Understanding between the Management and erstwhile Company Semi-Conductor Complex Limited ( SCC Ltd. for short) and its employees/Union, ceased to operate/remain effective or binding on the newly formed Society namely, Semi-Conductor Laboratory. The stand of the respondents is that the SCL Society where the husband of the applicant was working prior to his death on 21.11.2006 came into existence on its being restructured into a Society w.e.f. 1.9.2006 under the Govt. of India, Department of Space which is an autonomous body. They have further stated that since the inception of the SCL Society w.e.f. 1.9.2006, no person has been appointed on compassionate grounds in SCL Society from 1.9.2006 till the date of filing of their reply.
6. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the respective submissions made by the parties. I have also carefully perused the records of the case.
8. One of the objections raised by the respondents is that the person for whom appointment on compassionate grounds is being sought has not been made a party in the present case and the applicant herself is not requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. However, I am of the view that even if this fact were to be overlooked the applicant does not have a case.
9. The respondents have also raised a preliminary issue of delay in this case. It is seen that the husband of the applicant died on 21.11.2006. She submitted a request letter dated 13.12.2006 to Respondent no. 2 seeking employment for her second son, namely Vaneet Kumar Sharma in SCL Society on compassionate grounds. She filed the present OA in December, 2009. Therefore, there is a delay in her filing of the OA since she should have waited only for six months after filing of the representation if she did not receive any reply from the respondents. Thus, the OA deserves to be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. However, even if I were to condone this delay, the applicant would still not have a case even on merit.
10. Since the applicant has prayed for multiple reliefs, only the first relief relating to compassionate appointment will be considered in the present case. There is no need to go into the detailed arguments forwarded by both the parties since no point of law is involved. The husband of the applicant died on 21.11.2006 and as per instructions dated 5.5.2003 issued by Govt. of India, the cases for compassionate appointment are to be closed after 3 years from the date of death of the Govt. employee.
11. However, even otherwise the Honble Supreme Court of India has laid down that only 5% of the posts are to be kept for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the present case, the respondents have categorically stated that they have not filled up any post by way of direct recruitment since the inception of the SCL Society in 2006.
12. The Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to protect the family of the deceased from financial destitution. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis.
13. For all the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) MEMBER (A) Dated: December 16, 2010.
ms 7 OA No. 1003/PB/2009.