Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Suvarthamma vs M/O Railways on 12 December, 2023
ity 1 OA 11572020 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA _NO.115 /2020 Dated Tuesday the 28" day of February Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MS. L ATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Smet, Suvarthamma M/o late Janardhana Rao No. 12/11, 4th Street Chigrinthapalayam, Korukkupet Chennai-600021 - Applicant By Advocate M/s.L.Chandrakumar Vs. | Union of India, Represented by The Principle Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Park Town, ; Chennai-600003 - Respondents By Advocate Mr.K.Vijayaragavan 2 0A.115/2020 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed the present OA. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records related to impugned order No.P (CC) 353/OA1117/18/CAT/MAS Dn dated 13.08.2019 and to quash the same, and further to direct the respondents fo appoint the applicant's son, brother of the deceased railway employee on compassionate ,grounds and further to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice, ."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant is the mother of the deceased railway employee late Shri. Janardhana Rao who was appointed on compassionate ground consequent on the death of the applicant's husband while In service. The applicant husband Srl.I.Mosanna who was the employee of the respondents died on 11.04.2001. Being the eldest son Shri K.Janardhana Rao son of the applicant has been appointed on compassionate ground In the office of the respondents. The said Shri KJanardhana Rao also died on 20.04.2016 leaving behind his mother, the applicant, one unmarried sister and one ~ unmarried brother, for whom the applicant Is claiming the present compassionate appointment. The applicant's request for compassionate appointment for her second son has been rejected by the respondents by their letter dated 08.02.2018 stating that the applicant's son died as a Bachelor and in the family composition the name of the second son had nat been recorded hence he could not be considered as a dependent. However, ~ In partial modification of RBE 79/1996 which provided for appointment on compassionate grounds to dependents of Railway employees dying as bachelors, RBE 66/1997 provides that In case of railway employee dying as Ne 3 OA 115/2020 bachelor/spinister the claim of dependency could be considered on the basis of document such as inclusion of the names of the family members in the . pass (as dependents) or In ration card, etc. As such without any Inquiry, the said rejection has been came into effect. Therefore by filing OA 1117/2018 the applicant has approached thts Tribunal. Upon hearing both sides, this Tribunal by Its order dated 24.01.2019 recorded that in the absence of any such documentary evidence the factual position in respect of dependency could have been verified through an Inquiry by a Welfare Inspector and also "by considering the documents which can establish the dependency.
Therefore this Tribunal disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the clatm of the applicant's son if he produce any evidence to that effect to prove his dependency. According to the direction of this Tribunal, the respondent authority have considered the claim of the applicant's son by detailed order dated 13.08.2019 and rejected the same. Being aggrieved the applicant has challenged the same in the present OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their counter and raised objections over the claim of the applicant on the ground that Shri. Venkata koteswara Rao, was about 35 years at the time of death of his elder brother. He was neither infirm nor otherwise Incapacitated. Thus, he cannat be deemed to be a dependant on late Janarthana Rao, as defined by the Rallway Pass rules. Incidentally, Shri.Venkata Koteswara Rao was not included, as dependent; in the family composition register of Shri. K. Janarthana Rao (for Pass/PTOS) as dependent In terms of of Pass Rules, 1986. The applicant Srnt. Suvarthamma, has produced a copy of the ration card, legal heirship 4 OA 115/2020 certificate (2001 dated) and family composition of Late Mosanna. It was seen that, the name of Shri.K.Venkata Koteswara Rao figured in the ration card of Smt. Suvarthamma. The ration card established that the family members listed, are living together in a single unit. The legal heirship certificate . identified the appropriate legitimate heirs of the deceased Mosanna. However, these documents did not establish the dependency of one member of the family on another. The Respondent submits that the scheme of compassionate appointment Is to provide relief to a deserving family so that they can tide over the immediate financial crisis due to the sudden loss of income consequent to the demise of the employee. It is towards this, that | Sir.K.Janardhana Rao the elder son was given appointment under compassionate grounds, Further, the applicant, Srnt. Suvarthamma is now in receipt of 2 family pensions. The General Manager felt that these amounts would provide adequate financial security to provide for the needs of the widow. This is particularly true in this case as there are no minor or special wards to be taken care of, It is also reasonable to expect that at 35 years of | age Shri. Venkata Koteswara Rao cannot be considered a dependent of his elder brother, It is to be. kept in mind that the entire provision of compassionate ground appointment Is to provide immediate relief. to the family. The purpose is definitely not to provide employment opportunities to all members of the family. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard learned counsel MrL.Chandrakumar for the applicant and Mrk.Vijayaragavan for the respondents and perused the relevant documents along with the OA,
5. It Is to be noted that in support of his claim, the applicant has submitted all the documents, family card, legal heirship certificate, Non- ae hy 5 OA.115/2020 employment certificate, unmarried certificate as well as in respect of the qualification possessed by the applicant, the applicant is possessing B.Tech degree.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the applicant's son is possessing B.Tech degree as well as at the time of death of the late Janarthana Rao, he was 35 years old and in the family composition his name has not been recorded as a dependent. He also contended that the applicant is in recelpt of family pension against her déteased husband's claim . as well as the applicant Is also in receipt of the family pension against the deceased son's claim.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed on record the report of the Welfare Officer and the same has been taken on record and perused the same. The Welfare Officer In his report has given the following findings after verifying the facts at spot verification:
(i)The claim for appointment on Compassionate Grounds in favour of Sri. K.Venkata Koteswara Rao B/o late Janardhana Rao is found genuine.
(ii) He has passed BE degree.
(li)Sri. K.Venkata Koteswara Rao (candidate) Is un-married and depended.
(iv)He Is an Immediate bread winner of the family having-soclal obligation to take care his un married sister and widow niother.
(v) He belongs to SC (Madiga). Community.
8 tis to be noted that the object behind the compassionate appointment scheme is to come over the sudden crisis faced by the family due to the sudden death of the bread winner. Particularly in the matter of the applicant
2) 6 OA 115/2020 this Tribunal has already recorded in its findings that to consider the dependency factor, the authorities can consider the ration card and the Welfare Inspector's report as noted above. The Welfare Inspector after his detailed verification have given his findings. On the directions of this Tribunal in the earlier OA, even after the production of ration card, legal heirship certificate to prove the dependency, the contention of the respondents that the ration card. established that the family members listed, are living together in a single unlt. The legal heirship certificate Identified the appropriate legitimate heirs of the deceased Mosanna. However, these 'documents did not establish the dependency of one member of the family on another fis not sustainable. In my considered opinion, the respondents though they have passed a detailed order, however, they have not considered the Welfare Officer's report in Its true spirit. On the first occasion while rejecting the claim 'of the applicant, the respondents have come with the plea that he has not submitted any dependency proof. Thereafter against the direction of this Tribunal though they have passed a detailed order by giving so. many reasons, however on the face of the record of the Welfare Inspector's report, it is totally contradictory.
9. Accordingly, in my considered view, impugned order does not stand in the scrutiny in the eyes of law and is bad In law. OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant's son for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certifled copy of this order. OA is disposed of. No ordér as to costs.
pow . ome a, me ee ty,