Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bir Singh vs M/O Defence on 23 September, 2019
.u 'ft ■i ' 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH Original Application No. 350/01804/2017 Date of Order: This, the 23rd Day of September, 2019. THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE HON'BLE MR. N. NEIHSIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Bir Singh, son of Late Rampal Singh Residing at 50/1A/H-3 J3 9 mm 'X Karl Marx Sarani, %\ Khiddirpore, Kolkata - 700023. SL O ...Applicant.
-Versus-
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary to the . Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Deputy Director, Dte GM Staff Duties SD-7 (Admn.Civ) Genera! Staff Branch HQ of MOD (Army) DHQ P.O. New Delhi-110 011.
3. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances Welfare, Govt, of India, 3rd Floor Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market ; New Delhi-110 002.
4. The Commandant, The Station Cell, HQ Bengal Area AJC Bose Road, Alipore, Kolkata-700 027.
Respondents For the Applicant: Sri A K Chattopadhyay OA350/1804/2017 i .
'.J* 1 © 2 For the Respondents: Mr B B Chatterjee (proxy counsel) ORDER fORALt N NEIHSIAL MEMBER TA):
We have heard Mr. A K. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the OA and the documents annexed with the OA. Mr S K Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents was not c mm WM 5\ § a present. On his behalf Mr B B Chatterjee, proxy counsel appeared.
2. In this OA the applicant is seeking following relief (s):-
n8.a) An order be passed by directing the respondent authorities to give employment to the applicant on compassionate ground in the die-in-harness category immediately.
b) The impugned memo being NO.C/92842/B00-2017/$ep2017/SD-7 (Adm.Civ) dated 12.10.2017 issued by the respondent which is annexure A-9 to this application be set aside and quashed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
i
c) Any other order and/or orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
3. The father of the applicant Rampal Singh who I I was working as Conservancy Safaiwala under the t .350/1804/2017 AywvwvAyv mJ i '"y 3 Station Cell, Head Quarter, Bengal Area expired on 24.06.2006. Mrs Bandana Devi, wife of Late Rampal Singh was issued PPO. The application for compassionate appointment of his elder son was rejected vide letter no. 92842/SD-7(Adm Civ)/lll/174 dated 30.08.2011 wherein it was indicated that out of total 202 applications for compassionate appointment. only two applicants who secured 98 and 93 out of 100 wm WaM % §] o points as per norms laid down were recommended by the Board of Directors for compassionate appointment. Since the applicant has got only 48 points and placed at SI No.l 74, the Board of Directors did not recommend his case due to low relative merit.
4. Subsequent to this, the applicant, second son of the deceased Govt employee have been submitting i;
reminders/representatiohs on 16.03.2015, 11.10.2015, ii 15.02.2016, 01.02.2017 and 08.03.2017. These ii, representations, particularly referring to the last representation dated 08.03.2017 have been considered by the competent authority and were rejected vide letter No. C/92842/BOO-2017/Sep OA.350/1804/2017 I 7 4 2017/SD-7(Adm Civ) dated 12.10.2017 with the following remarks:-
, "4. A total 65 applicants for compassionate for compassionate appointment were considered by BOO. The BOO has recommended Eight (08) applicants who have secured 79, 76, 76, 76, 74, 73, 71 and 67 respectively against Eight (08) vacant posts calculated @ 15% which occurred in Gp 'O' recruitment posts for the year 2015 & 2016 respectively. for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds.
c wm I ^C, 5. However, BOO has rejected your case, due to the reason that you are over age as per © WiM SRO-70 for Gp 'O' posts for which Appointment on Compassionate Grounds are provided."
5. From the plain reading of the above letter it i' appears that the applicant has been rejected only on r 1:
the ground of being over age as per SRO -70 for Group i.
C posts. However, there is a provision for relaxation of i:
age by the competent authority for compassionate [( i appointment. This has not been amplified in the order cited above. It is also not clear whether the applicant i-
has been rejected only on the ground of being aver aged.
6. Despite giving several opportunities after issuance of notice i.e., on 15.05.2018, 10.07.2018, OA.350/1804/2017 V 5 21.08.2018, 28.11.2018, 05.02.2019 and 25.03.2019, no written statement has been filed by the respondents.
We could not hear the respondents also because of absence of learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant once again within a time frame.
Keeping in view of the above the respondent authorities are directed once again to examine and consider the case of the applicant and issue a detailed speaking order. This shall be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.
8. The OA is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
' Cn (N. NEIHSfftt)------ (MANJULA DAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICAIL MEMBER /BB/ OA.350/1804/2017