Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Smt. Jehro Devi vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 9 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A. No.36/HR/2013 Chandigarh, this the 9th day of September, 2013 1.Smt. Jehro Devi, aged about 55 years, widow of Sh. Banwari Lal, resident of Village Moda Khera, District Hisar. 2.Brij Bihari, aged about 26 years, s/o late Sh. Banwari Lal, resident of Village Moda Khera, District Hisar. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: SHRI R.K. SHARMA VERSUS 1.Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi. 2.Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt. (Hayana). 3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SH. DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i)Quash order No. R&E/24-35/2011/GDS dated 07.11.2012 passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby claim of applicants for compassionate engagement of applicant No. 2 on account of death of his father late Sh. Banwari Lal, Ex. BPM Moda Khera (Mandi Adampur) Hisar Division has been rejected on untenable grounds.
(ii)Quash order No. A-1/584 dated 10.12.2012, copy Annexure A-2, whereby respondent No. 2 has invited application for filling up the post of GDS BPM, Moda Khera and quashing thereof.
(iii)Issue directions to the respondents to re-consider case of the applicants and to grant compassionate engagement as GDS BPM, Moda Khera, District Hisar.
(iv)Restrain respondents from making direct recruitment against the post of GDS BPM Moda Khera for which advertisement has been issued vide notice dated 10.12.2012 (A-2).
2. In this application, it is stated that the applicants have common cause of action as they are claiming compassionate appointment due to death of husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2. Late Shri Banwari Lal s/o late Sh. Ami Lal, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2 was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Village Moda Khera on 17.11.1981 and he died on 05.07.2011 leaving behind his widow, two unmarried and unemployed sons and one unmarried and unemployed minor daughter.
3. Averment has been made in the OA that the family of the deceased has been left in a state of penury as they were wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased. The department considered the claim of the applicant No. 2 for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), but, rejected the same vide impugned order No. R & E/24-35/2011/GDS dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure A-1), on untenable grounds i.e. late Sh. Banwari Lal, was proceeded against for his wrong doings while performing his duty and therefore, his performance was not satisfactory, in terms of Directorate letter No. 17-0/2001-ED & TRG dated 15th February, 2001 and thus the Circle Relaxation Committee had rejected case of the applicant. It has further been averred that although the husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2 was put off duty vide order dated 31.7.2002, the said orders were revoked vide Memo dated 26.5.2003 and he was again taken on duty (Annexure A-4). It was also relevant to mention that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the deceased employee and no punishment was awarded and he performed his duties for a period of more than 10 years after the incident of being put off duty. Even the latest report dated 24.6.2011 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Hisar (West) Hisar was in his favour (Annexure A-5). After the death of Sh. Banwari Lal, the work was being done through Sh. Sadhu Ram, E.D., BPO, Adampur, Branch Post Office, Ghursar as a stop gap arrangement.
4. It is further stated that compassionate appointment is given in view of penurious condition of the family of the deceased. In the present case, applicants have no source of income and late Sh. Banwari Lal was the sole bread earner of the family. Thus, the family was virtually starving. Respondent Department had paid a nominal amount of Rs. 55,028/- only as Ex-Gratia Gratuity vide Memo dated 23.4.2012 and Rs. 44,475/- towards severance amount vide Memo dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure A-6). The claim of the applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment has been rejected taking into consideration misconduct of late Sh. Banwari Lal, which happened way back in 2002 and after that he rendered service in the department for a period of ten years. The reason given by the respondents for rejecting the claim of applicant No. 2 for employment on compassionate grounds had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and was violative of the policy for providing compassionate appointment and was not legally sustainable. The impugned order No. R & E/24-35/2011/GDS dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure A-1) is the subject of this OA.
5. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that as per instructions contained in DG Posts New Delhi letter No. 17-9/2001-ED & TRG dated 15.02.2001 (Annexure R-1), compassionate appointment is meant as a gesture of welfare and goodwill by the Government, keeping in view the work done by the former EDA. Needless to day, such a gesture would not be at all permissible in the case of an EDA who was the subject of departmental proceedings for some wrong doings. Extension of the welfare measure to the dependent of an EDA dying in harness can only be justified when the performance of the EDA was found to be satisfactory. Late Sh. Banwari Lal, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2 was engaged as GDS BPM on 17.12.1981. He was proceeded against for his wrong doings and punishment of debarring him from appearing in any departmental examination was awarded vide SPOs Hisar letter dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure R-2). He was again proceeded against for his wrong doings and punishment of Censure was awarded vide SPOs Hisar memo dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure R-3). Compassionate appointment case of Sh. Brij Bihari s/o late Sh. Banwari Lal Ex-GDS BPM was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee held at Ambala and was rejected in the light of the instructions contained in DG Posts letter dated 15.2.2001 (Annexure R-1). Besides, the respondents had initiated action for filling the post of GDS BPM Moda Khera BO and this was at the final stage.
6. The matter was taken up for hearing. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the grounds taken in the OA. He further submitted that the application of the applicant No. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected keeping in view Directorates letter No. 17-9/2001-ED & Trg. dated 15.2.2001 wherein directions had been given to all the field offices by the Department of Posts that in the case of an EDA dying in harness, appointment on compassionate grounds could not be justified when the performance of the EDA was found to be satisfactory and any deviation from this norm would be viewed seriously. In para 2 of this letter, reference had been made to disciplinary proceedings of employees that led to their removal/dismissal from service. Learned counsel argued that in the present case, the deceased employee had only been penalized by disallowing him from appearing in any departmental examination for a period of two years on 30.9.2004 and by way of Censure through order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexures R-2 & R-3 respectively). The deceased employee had not indulged in any such grave irregularity that would invite action in his case on the basis of the Circular dated 15.2.2001. Moreover, the Department of Posts itself had circulated the Scheme for engagement of GDS on compassionate grounds-Merit points and procedure for selection on 14.12.2010 and it was mentioned in the same that this policy would be made effective for all compassionate engagement cases to be considered on or after 01.01.2011. Since in the present case, the ex-employee died on 5.7.2001, in considering the claim for appointment on compassionate appointment made by his son, these instructions had to be applied rather than the earlier instructions of the year 2001. Moreover, in the latest policy guidelines, there was no mention regarding track record of a deceased employee while considering the claim of one of his legal heirs for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee had not been considered at all and he requested that the Department be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the policy guidelines of 14.12.2010.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that in the present case, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds had not been considered as per the applicable policy guidelines and hence, he would have no objection if the matter was referred to the Department for reconsideration.
8. Keeping the above position in view, it is hereby directed that the respondents may consider the claim of the applicant No. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds keeping in view the policy guidelines of 14.12.2010 and after assessing the financial position of the family of the deceased employee. This action may be completed within a period of three months of the certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents. Till decision is taken in the matter, the post of GDSBPM, Moda Khera may be kept vacant as it appears that this Branch Post Office has been running in accommodation provided by the family of the deceased employee.
9. The OA is accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: September 9th, 2013,
ND*