Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
L Sankar vs D/O Post on 11 October, 2023
1 OA No.310/00874/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00874/2021
Dated this 11th day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
L. Sankar,
S/o Late M. Loganathan,
No.842, 47th Cross Street,
Thiruvallur Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai. .. Applicant
•
By Advocate M/s N. Saravanan
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Chennai.
2. The Senior Superintendent,RMS,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, RMS,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
2 OA No.310/00874/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
" to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in 8110/M. Loganathan dated 28.08.2013 and B110/M. Loganathan dated 23.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the applicant under the compassionate appointment grounds and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant's father M. Loganathan joined the service as sorting Assistant in Chennai in the Postal Service. Due to sudden illness, he could not recover and died on 16.12.2009 leaving behind his wife, son (the applicant) and 2 daughters as his legal heirs. The applicant has completed X standard and was unemployed. The mother is receiving the family pension of Rs.13,000/-. The applicant's two sisters remained unmarried due to indigent conditions. The applicant submitted a representation on 09.08.2010 for compassionate appointment. After several reminders the applicant sent one more representation on 23.08.2013. The applicant was expecting the appointment but to his surprise and shock, the respondent informed the applicant's name was considered and rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee for the year 2012. The applicant's request for 3 OA No.310/00874/2021 compassionate appointment was mechanically rejected in the CRC-2015 on the grounds: "non-availability of Direct Recruitment Vacancy in the respective cadre under RRR(Relaxation of Recruitment Rules) Quota' Less indigent as per Relative Merit Points under RRR ajuota. Once again, the applicant made a representation and once again the respondent rejected the request of the applicant in the CRC - 2016-17 on the above said grounds. The respondents by letter dated 10.12.2020 informed the applicant that his case will not be considered again. Hence the present Original Application.
3. Heard Mr. N. Saravanan the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Nagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
4. Arguments of the applicant.
4.1 The learned counsel submitted that question of considering a candidature would arise only when there are vacancy in the direct recruitment quota. In the absence of the vacancy, the consideration would never arise at all. He contended that consideration of candidature would arise only in the recruitment years and not in the academic years, thus the 1st point of rejection cited by the respondents falls to ground. 4.2 The learned counsel submitted that the respondent's rejection was made mechanically just to project the world that proper consideration has been made. He submitted that while considering a request for 4 OA No.310/00874/2021 appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential need of the family etc. 4.3 The learned counsel relied on the following Orders:
(i) Judgment dated 03.02.2016 in O.A.No.392 of 2013, CAT, Chennai Bench
(ii) Judgement dated 10.01.2018 in O.A.No.1004 of 2016, CAT, Chennai Bench.
(iii) Judgment dated 12.04.2018 in WA.No.6305 of 2018 of Hon'ble Madras High Court.
(iv) Judgement November 2019 in O.A.No.1690 of 2017, CAT Chennai Bench.
(v) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7752 of 202.
4.4 The learned counsel further contended that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry. The applicant's mother is 58 years who was bedridden for several years due to cancer and taking treatment. The respondents failed to note that the applicant's sister both are unmarried due to indigent circumstances. The whole family has no alternative source of income and was depending on the family pension. Therefore, the 5 OA No.310/00874/2021 rejection of the applicant's claim without conducting any enquiry is totally arbitrary, unreasonable hence, the applicant prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
5. Arguments of the respondents.
5.1 Per contra, the learned counsel vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant. He stated that the applicant's case was examined for compassionate appointment applying the Relative Merit Point as prescribed. The Relative Merit Point (RMP) secured by the applicant was 62.
5.2 The counsel further submitted that the applicant's case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee held in the year 2012 and the case of the applicant was not recommended on the grounds that it had less indigence as per RMP compared to candidates whose applications were processed and recommended. The decision about consideration of eligible cases against 5% vacancies reserved under direct recruitment quota was taken after objective assessment of each case. Total 876 candidates out of which 94 was recommended and balance 782 was not recommended 5.3 The counsel submitted that the respondent by letter dated 11.07.2012 communicated to the applicant that his case was not recommended by CRC on the following grounds:
"(i) Less Indigent as per RMP when compared to the last candidate who 6 OA No.310/00874/2021 had been considered and recommended. Your RMP is 62 whereas the last candidate selected RMP is 69. You are not eligible
(ii) There is no vacancy available in the 5% Direct Recruitment Quota earmarked for compassionate appointment"
5.4 The counsel submitted that the case of the applicant was again considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee held in the year 2015. Total 984 candidates including not recommended cases of the previous year (CRC 2012) out of which 50 was recommended and 734 was not recommended. He submitted that the respondents by letter dated 23.09.2015 communicated to the applicant that his case was not recommended by CRC- 2015 on the following grounds:
"(i) Less Indigent as per RMP when compared to the last candidate who had been considered and recommended. Your RMP is 62 whereas the last candidate selected RMP is 66. You are not eligible
(ii) Non availability of Direct Recruitment Quota in the respective cadre under RRR quota"
5.5 The counsel submitted that the case of the applicant was again considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee held in the year 2016- 2017. Total 995 candidates including not recommended cases of the previous year (CRC 2012 & CRC 2015) out of which 32 was recommended and 963 was not recommended. He submitted that the respondent by letter dated 06.11.2020 communicated to the applicant that his case was not recommended by CRC- 2016-17 on the following grounds:
7 OA No.310/00874/2021
"(i) Less Indigent as per RMP when compared to the last candidate who had been considered and recommended Your RMP is 62 whereas the last candidate selected RMP is 70. You are not eligible
(ii) Non availability of Direct Recruitment Quota in the respective cadre under RRR quota."
5.6 The counsel submitted that the respondents by letter dated 10.12.2020 informed the applicant that even though the CRC for three times during the year 2012, 2015 & 2016-17 has considered the case of the applicant but it could not recommend his case due to less RMP and as such,the applicant's case would not be considered again. He submitted that various courts have held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant become entitled automatically for appointment rather than it depends on various circumstances like eligibility, financial conditions of the family and the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme and the scheme does not create legal right. Therefore, compassionate appointment cases cannot be considered without applying Relative Merit System. He submitted that the applicant is not entitled for the relief sought in the O.A.
6. Findings of the Tribunal 6.1 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondent. I have gone through the citation made by the applicant cited supra but those cases will not help the applicant. Various courts have held that High courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of person on 8 OA No.310/00874/2021 compassionate grounds but can merely give a direction for consideration of the claim for such appointment. In the present case CRC for 3 times during the year 2012, 2015 & 2016-17 has considered the case of the applicant, but it could not be recommended for the reasons stated supra. 6.2. In my opinion while considering the claim for employment on compassionate ground the following factors have to be borne in mind as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994(4) SCC 138)
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulation issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the decease/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be."
6.3 I have considered the submission of both the parties and since the respondents by taking note of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have passed a detailed order after considering all criteria 9 OA No.310/00874/2021 in respect of the assessment as well as rule position and rejected the claim of the applicant. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.6.2021 which warrants no interference.
7. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(J)
mas 11.10.2023