Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Suseela vs D/O Post on 26 November, 2018
iof3
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MADRAS BENCH
Dated the Monday 26" day of November Two Thousand And Eighteen
PRESENT;
THE HON'BLE MR. R, RAMANUJAM, MEMBER (A)
M.A.310/298/2018
in
0.A. 310/628/2018
&
0.A./310/628/2018
M. Suseela,
W/o. (late), P. Mani,
No. 5/2, Solai Street,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai- 600 023,
...Applicant in both MA and OA
(By Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
i. Union of India Rep. by
The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002;
2, 'The Assistant Director (Recit)
O/o. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tarnil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002;
3. The Superintendent,
Railway Mail Service (RMS),
Chennat Sorting Division,
Chennai- 600 008.
Respondents in both MA and OA
{By Advocate: Mr. M.T, Arunan)
2of3
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. R. Ramanujam, Member (A)) Heard. MA 298 of 2018 to condone the delay of 513 days (excluding limitation Period) in filing the OA is allowed.
2. The applicant has filed this O.A seeking the following reliefs: -
"to call for the records of the 2" respondent pertaining to his order made in NO. REP/31-16/2003 dated 01.03.2018 and set aside the same, consequent to
ii) direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in any one of the vacant post by relaxing her educational qualifications as per the guidelines at para 6(B)(d) of OMs dated 09.10.1998 and 16.01.2013 issued by the DoP&T with all attendant benefits from the 06.06.2033 including monitory benefits."
3. It is submitted that the applicant's request for compassionate appointment had been turned down on the ground that the applicant was awarded Relative Merit Points (RMP) of 78 against 91 of the last selected candidate in the MTS cadre in CRC-2012 & 85 in CRC-2015. It is alleged that the family had a minor child to take care of for which the applicant was entitled to 5 additional points.
4. On perusal, it is seen that the applicant had been awarded 78 RMP against his claim of 83. Even assuming that the claim is valid, his score would only be 83 which is below 85 of the last selected candidate in CRC-
2015. Accordingly, the relief sought in this OA cannot be granted. However, it is further seen that the applicant had been informed by impugned order 3 of 3 dated 01.03.2018 that his case would be placed again in the ensuing Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) and result would be intimated in due course. The matter of compassionate appointment is sub-judice before the Court, Compassionate appointment cases would be examined after the judicial process was over, it was stated.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that although the award of additional 5 RMPS to the applicant for a minor child in the family would not taketh him beyond 85, it might become important in a subsequent consideration of 'his case where the cut off might be lower than the RMP claimed by the applicant. The respondents are, therefore, liable to be given a direction in this regard.
6. I have considered the matter. Since the matter has not yet been placed before the next CRC, the applicant would be at liberty to file a representation before the competent authority drawing their attention to the relevant provisions of the scheme and staking her claim for additional RMPs. It is then for the CRC to consider it in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and take an appropriate decision. The applicant would be at liberty at that stage to exercise an appropriate legal remedy should her claim be rejected and if so advised.
7. OA is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
eee : oon - . : ron