Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nandan Singh Koranga vs Niti Aayog on 3 October, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.4145/2018
Orders Reserved on: 27.09.2019.
Pronounced on: 03.10.2019.
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
Nandan Singh Koranga,
S/o late Shri Nain Singh,
R/o House No.1170, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.12, Near Veer Pal Atta Chakki,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
-Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ramesh Dutta)
Versus
Union of India & Others: through
1. The CEO/Secretary, NITI Aayog,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. The Adviser (Admn.),NITI Aayog,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Secretary (Admn.),NITI Aayog,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
ORDER
This case has seen multiple rounds of litigation. Applicant's father was working as senior peon in Planning Commission. He met with a road accident and unfortunately died on 02.06.2001. Applicant was 17 years of age at that time. Applicant's mother requested for compassionate ground appointment for him. The respondents considered the case in their meeting held on 06.06.2003 and recommended for 2 OA No.4145/18 compassionate ground appointment. The relevant part of the recommendations is reproduced below:
"The Committee set up by the Planning Commission for recommending cases for compassionate appointments met on 06.06.2003 at 3.00 p.m. under chairmanship of Dr. D.K. Sharma, Director (GA), Planning Commission. The meeting was attended by Shri T.R. Meena, Director (Adm.), Planning Commission and Shri G.P. Grover, Deputy Secretary, Planning Commission as Members. The Committee considered the requests from Shri Nand Singh, Senior Peon, Planning Commission for engagement as Casual Worker in the Planning Commission pending regular appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the financial position of their families. The Committee also reviewed the existing pending ten cases for regular appointment on compassionate grounds as well as considered one more request received from the dependent son of Late Shri Moti Ram, Daftry, Planning Commission.
Case Name (Date of Date of death Details Financial Educational or Recommendations
No. birth) of the of the of family position of other of the Committee
candidate for deceased members the family qualification of
compassionate employee and of the the candidate
appointment, date of deceased for
relationship submission employee compassionate
with, name of of application appointment
the deceased
employee and
age of
employee at
the time of
death
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Nandan Singh 02.06.2001 Wife, one Family 10th pass The Committee
(19.6.1984), son and Pension: recommended his
S/o Late Sh. 18.10.2001 one Rs.1720/- case for
Nain Singh, daughter +DA engagement as
Sr. Peon, PC, upto Casual Worker, as
56 years appx. 01.06.2008 per his seniority
Afterwards in this list and
Rs.1275/- against vacancy
+DA, available or on its
DCRG: becoming
Rs.98,380/- available in
CGEGIS: future. All the
Rs.36,073/- other four cases
Leave senior to him are
encashme already working
nt as Casual
Rs.22,224/-
Workers. His
GPF:
Rs.65,604/-
case for regular
DLI appointment on
Rs.60,000/- compassionate
grounds in the
Planning
Commission will
be taken up for
consideration by
the Committee
when there is a
vacancy.
3
OA No.4145/18
2. Applicant was accordingly engaged as a daily wager where he joined on 05.08.2003 and is continuing since then as such.
His case was considered again on 28.08.2003 wherein the following recommendations were made:
"the Committee considered his case in view of the recent request from his mother for retention of Government accommodation and recommended his case for appointment against a future Group "C" post vacancy subject to the condition that actual offer of appointment will be issued, as per his seniority in this list, as and when a vacancy under this category becomes available. He is also working on daily wage basis."
3. These recommendations were approved on 16.09.2003. The applicant has been continuing as a daily wager.
4. Subsequently, there was one such similar case wherein one Shri Tek Chand, s/o late Shri Manohar Lal, ex-peon (who had expired on 31.10.1998) was considered by the respondents in their meeting held on 25.10.2007 and was approved for compassionate ground appointment. Applicant pleads that at that time there was a limit of considering such cases up to three years and the case of Shri Tek Chand was well beyond three years time and yet it was considered and approved.
The applicant is aggrieved that while Tek Chand's case was considered well past three years limit, he has been advised through a subsequent communication that his case was beyond three years limit and as such could not be considered. 4 OA No.4145/18
5. The applicant approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.987/2012 which was decided vide orders dated 23.03.2012 wherein the following directions were issued:
"5. As the submissions of the applicant will first have to be verified from the records available with the respondents after which only his pending request can be decided in terms of the rules and instructions on the subject, and in view of his above request, we dispose of this OA in the first stance, by directing the respondents to look into the pending representation dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure A-1) of the applicant, treating this OA also as a supplementary representation, and take a decision in his case in accordance with the rules, and communicate the decision taken to the applicant by issue of a reasoned and speaking order on the subject. This may be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the formal decision is taken and communicated, to the applicant, the respondents will not fill up the vacancies available on compassionate grounds."
6. In compliance thereof, the respondents passed an order dated 16.04.2012, which reads as under:
"7. As your case was erroneously considered for more than 5 years, whereas the maximum prescribed limit was only three years as per instructions of DoPT vide their OM dated 05-05-2003, it has been decided with the approval of Member-Secretary, Planning Commission that your application pending with Planning Commission Administration will be treated as 'time barred' & hence closed. Therefore, your case was not submitted for consideration by the Committee in its Meeting held on 10.01.2012.
8. Further, it has also been noticed that in your application you have declared that you have not filed any other OA before any bench of the Tribunal and no case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This is not correct position as per the records available as you alongwith 33 daily waged workers have filed a case vide OA No.4627/2011 in the matter of Mani Ram and Ors. v. UOI & Ors. in the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the issue of granting temporary status as well as regularization in service.
9. In view of the foregoing, it is to inform that your application for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds after death of your father (Late) Shri Nain Singh in the year 5 OA No.4145/18 2001 has been considered by the Competent Authority but the same cannot be acceded to for the reasons stated above."
7. The three years time limit, as referred in these orders, has subsequently been removed by DoP&T vide their OM dated 26.07.2012. The applicant also made a representation on 29.07.2013 which was decided vide respondents' letter dated 25.09.2013, which reads as follows:
"The undersigned is directed to refer to communication dated 29.07.2013 received from Shri Nandan Singh, Daily Wager, DBT Division, Planning Commission on the subject mentioned above and to inform you that all the vacancies identified for compassionate quota upto 2011 have since been filled in Planning Commission. However, the case of Sh. Nandan Singh for appointment on compassionate grounds for the vacancy arising against the year 2012 will be taken up for consideration by the Committee on Compassionate Grounds in accordance with the rules laid down by the Department of Personnel & Training from time to time for the purpose along with other eligible candidates."
8. Accordingly, applicant's case was considered again on 25.09.2013 and it was decided that his case will be considered against the vacancies arising in the year 2012 onwards. The applicant pleads that this commitment for considering his case against the vacancies of the year 2012 has not been implemented by the respondents as yet.
9. The applicant also filed another OA No.3589/2015, which was decided on 31.10.2017. The following directions were given:
6OA No.4145/18
"10. It is not denied that the staff strength of Planning Commission may have been brought down. However, the respondents have to be very specific with respect to various groups of posts where the vacancies have been brought down, to what extent they have been brought down, and whether after considering the reduced strength, a decision has been taken by the competent authority to either abolish or not to fill the posts of compassionate appointment earmarked for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. The respondents have failed to explain clearly whether the reduction of staff has resulted in formal decision abolishing the quota for compassionate appointment or a policy decision not to fill these posts. They have also to explain that these vacancies were available before the staff strength was brought down and if the adequate action would have been taken by the respondents at appropriate time, the same could have been filled and it was possible that the applicant may have also 10 been appointed against one of the vacant posts earmarked against compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents was very emphatic while mentioning the fact that the applicant is already working as a daily wager. However, it is clear that his working as daily wager does not extinguish his right to be appointed on compassionate appointment under the rules and, therefore, his status of daily wager does not alter the nature of the OA. 11. Given these facts, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of compassionate appointment of the applicant considering all aspects, which is, in a way, fulfilment of their own commitment to the applicant as reflected by the letter dated 25.09.2013 wherein they have explicitly mentioned that the case of the applicant will be taken up for consideration by the Committee on compassionate grounds. While considering his case for compassionate appointment, the respondents are also directed to take into account the observations made in paragraph 10 above, and specifically mention whether a formal policy decision has been taken in the Aayog either to abolish the quota of compassionate appointment or not to fill these posts. This consideration and decision on the prayer of the applicant for his compassionate appointment may be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
10. In compliance thereof, the respondents have issued a speaking order on 31.01.2018, which reads as under:
"(a) On expiry of your father (Late) Shri Nain Singh, who was in service as Senior Peon in erstwhile Planning Commission, on 02.06.2001, your mother Smt. Ganwara Devi through a representation dated 26.09.2001 informed about the poor financial condition of her family and her ill 7 OA No.4145/18 health and requested to consider your candidature, then 17 years old, for compassionate appointment.
(b) Your case was considered during 2002 by the Committee for compassionate appointment with the recommendation to consider your case along with others against future vacancies but the recommendation remained infructuous in the absence of any vacancy for compassionate appointment in the year 2003.
(c) The prescribed time limit of 3 years for considering the compassionate appointment, as per DoPT O.M. dated 05.05.2003, expired on 01.06.2004. In view of your claim being time-barred, your candidature could not be considered against the vacancies occurred in the years 2008, 2009 & 2011.
(d) The time limit of 03 years stipulated in DoPT O.M. dated 05.05.2003 was subsequently withdrawn vide DoPT O.M. dated 26.07.2012. Three (03) vacancies for compassionate appointment arose for the year 2012, 2013 & 2014. NITI Aayog immediately began the process of gathering details of 51 claimants, as per proforma prescribed by Department of Personnel and Training, which included your case as well. Even before this administrative process could be completed and the meeting of the Committee for Compassionate Appointments could be convened, a decision to restructure Planning Commission into NITI Aayog was taken.
(e) Consequent upon formation of NITI Aayog in place of Planning Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2015, it was decided to undertake a restructuring exercise in the light of revised Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 read with the Cabinet Resolution dated 01.01.2015.
(f) After approval of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Task Force on Restructuring NITI Aayog Secretariat, the total staff strength in the NITI Secretariat was fixed at 500 compared to the original strength of 1255 in Planning Commission. After restructuring, sanctioned strength of Group "C" posts was reduced from 468 to 112 leaving 163 as surplus. As on 26.01.2018 working strength against these posts is 194, implying that 82 persons are already working on a supernumerary basis. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that a DR vacancy against Group "C" posts is going to arise any time soon.
(g) In view of the above position, there is ZERO vacancy of DR quota in Group "C" post for compassionate appointment being made up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group "C" post [as per DoPT O.M. No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D) d. 16.1.2013], which as has been pointed in previous paragraph, is also ZERO.
(h) No formal policy decision has been taken in the Aayog either to abolish the quota of compassionate appointment or 8 OA No.4145/18 not to fill these posts. Posts may definitely be filled as and when they fall vacant.
(i) In the unlikely event that sufficient vacancies in the DR quota arise as to make vacancies available for compassionate appointment, the applications of all claimants including yours will be considered on merits."
11. Thereafter the applicant made another representation dated 16.04.2018 which was replied by the respondents on 24.07.2018, which reads as follows:
"I am directed to refer to your representation dated 16.04.2018 on the subject mentioned above and to say that on examination of your aforementioned representation, it has been found that on the direction of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the issue of your compassionate appointment has been reconsidered by the competent authority keeping in view all aspects and you have been informed the factual position accordingly. No new aspect of point, which remains unaddressed, has come to the notice so far in this regard."
12. The applicant is aggrieved at these two letters dated 31.01.2018 and 24.07.2018 and filed the instant OA. He has sought relief in the form of a direction to be issued to the respondents to fulfil their commitment as given to him on 25.09.2013 (para 7 supra).
13. Per contra, the respondents have brought out that applicant's father had unfortunately expired on 02.06.2001 and as per the DoP&T instructions at that time applicant's case could only be considered for three years thereafter. During this time of three years, it was not possible to offer compassionate ground appointment to the applicant. Thereafter, his case could not be considered beyond 01.06.2004 in view of the claim 9 OA No.4145/18 being time barred for the vacancies which occurred in the years 2008, 2009 and 2011.
Further, there were other candidates also and total number of vacancies for compassionate ground appointment is limited to 5% only. Applicant's case could not mature.
14. It is also pleaded that the three years time limit was removed vide DoP&T OM dated 26.07.2012 and accordingly applicant's case, could be considered for vacancies occurred in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Accordingly, respondents had begun the process of gathering the details in respect of 51 claimants for compassionate ground appointment, including the applicant. However, subsequently the Planning Commission was replaced by a new body known as Niti Aayog w.e.f. 01.01.2015. In view of the changed circumstances and the work assigned to Niti Aayog the overall strength of Planning Commission was reduced to 500 from 1255 earlier and accordingly it has not been possible to offer compassionate ground appointment to all the candidates including the applicant.
However, the respondents had also made the following averment in their counter reply:
"(i) In the unlikely event that sufficient vacancies in the DR quota arise as to make vacancies available for compassionate appointment, the applications of all claimants including that of the applicant will be considered on merits."10 OA No.4145/18
15. The matter has been heard at length. Shri Ramesh Dutta, learned counsel represented the applicant and Shri Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel represented the respondents.
16. Compassionate ground appointment is not a matter of right but a benevolent consideration to be extended to the bereaved family to extend immediate help so as to avoid conditions of penury. This consideration has since been extended by the respondents and even though regular appointment could not be offered the applicant was appointed on daily wage basis and this arrangement has been continued since then. It is noted that applicant's case is under continuous consideration by the respondents along with other similarly placed candidates.
Applicant's plea that vacancies meant for compassionate ground appointments cannot be surrendered, is not acceptable as such appointments are limited to 5% of fresh appointments and not to vacancies.
17. In view of the foregoing, the present OA is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant, along with other candidates, as per rules in force at 11 OA No.4145/18 that time and as and when vacancies arise for compassionate ground appointment. No costs.
(Pradeep Kumar) Member (A) 'San.'