Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Raj Kumar vs General Manager N C Rly on 2 May, 2023
OA No. 708 of 2012
Reserved
(On 26.04.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the _02nd_ day of _May_ 2023
Original Application No. 708 of 2012
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Raj Kumar, S/o Dhunnar, Grandson of Late Keshav Lal, R/o Mauja
Sikandar Pur Vajaha Post Moorate Ganj, Kaushambi.
. . .Applicant
By Adv : Shri A.N. Pandey
VERSUS
1. General Manager, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking relief to quash the order dated 13.11.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected, and to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground, and any other suitable order or direction which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the applicant is that Grandfather of the applicant, Keshav Lal, was employed as Meth (Class IV) in the Railway, he died, while in service, as a result of an accident at Bharwari Railway on 19.06.2002, leaving behind his wife Dukhani Devi and other family members including the dependents as his legal heirs. After the death of his Grandfather, as there is no major member in the family to look after the bereaved family, the family had to face untold miseries as the son of Page 1 of 5 OA No. 708 of 2012 deceased employee Dhunner Singh died on 02.01.20021 earlier than Shri Keshav Lal. Grandmother of the applicant Smt. Dukhani Dvei presented the claim of the applicant on 30.10.2002 and requested to grant compassionate appointment to her minor grandson, and after that she moved several representations dated 13.07.2005, 30.08.2204, 15.09.2005, 17.05.2005, 30.09.2006, 11.03.2007, 29.07.2009, 30.11.2010 and 13.01.2011 and it was claimed that wife of Keshav Lal may be given compassionate appointment, but it was not done, then the grandson became major. Finally, the matter was referred to the compassionate Court of Railway vide its order dated 18.10.2011. Respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the applicant on ground that the educational qualification for appointment in the department is High School and also on the ground that the compassionate appointment is granted to the son, daughter of the deceased employee and grandson does not fall under the category of dependent of the deceased employee, vide its order dated 03.11.2011. The applicant claims that he has a right to compassionate appointment as he has passed class 8th and he is the grandson, so as a matter of right he should get compassionate appointment.
3. Counter reply has been filed by the respondents wherein they do not contest the basic facts of the case, but say that based on Auditor General of India and Ors vs. G. Anant Rajeswara Rao - (1994) 1 SCC 192 where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that, "....If the appointments are confined to the son/daughter or widow of the deceased government employee who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread-winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable. But in other cases it cannot be a rule to take Page 2 of 5 OA No. 708 of 2012 advantage of the Memorandum to appoint the persons to these posts on the ground of compassion......". As such, Railway Board had issued letter dated 13.12.1995 by which earlier instructions issued on the subject were modified and ward "near relative" has been deleted. They further say that as per the pronouncement given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Auditor General of India and Ors vs. G. Anant Rajeswara Rao (supra) and memorandum issued by the Railway Board on 13.12.1995, it is clear that grandson of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment, hence, claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment to the grandson of the deceased employee cannot be acceptable in the eye of law and the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Assistant Personnel Officer on behalf of Divisional Railway Manager, North central Railway, Allahabad is perfectly valid in the eye of law. They further say that the applicant has only passed 8th class and presently qualification for appointment in Group „D‟ is High School. Hence, claim of the applicant cannot be accepted, in view of his educational qualification, as such order dated 03.11.2011 is as per existing laws. Hence, the claim of the applicant cannot be granted and the OA should be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder reply has been filed wherein the applicant reiterates his claim as in the OA.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 26.04.2023. Shri A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard. I have gone through the records carefully and considered the rival contentions.
6. It is evident that the basic facts are not disputed that the deceased employees, grandfather of the applicant, died in the year 2002 when the applicant was a minor of the age (9 years) as school leaving certificate at Page 3 of 5 OA No. 708 of 2012 page 14 of the OA given date of birth of Raj Kumar as 01.01.1993. At present 21 years have passed since then and family has lived on. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. If I peruse the ratio of judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana - 1994 SCC (4) 138, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly held that appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered only if the family is in indigent circumstances and not as a matter of right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down following important principle regarding compassionate appointment:-
"(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground.
(ii) The posts in Group „C‟ and „D‟ (formerly classes III and IV) are the lowest pots in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds and no other post, i.e., in the Group „A‟ or Group „B‟ category is expected or required to be given for this purpose as it is legally impermissible.
(iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
(iv) Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible.
(v) Neither the qualifications of the applicant (dependent family member) nor the post held by the deceased or medically retired Government servant is relevant. If the applicant finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.
(vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
(vii) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis".
7. As rightly argued by the respondents counsel there is no vested right to compassionate appointment it is only given in cases of immediate indigent. From death of the deceased bread earner of the family in 2002, now more than 20 years have elapsed, hence, no urgency, pecuniary immediate financial crises in the family is in any way can be substantiated. As the applicant was not major at the time of death of his grandfather and compassionate appointment is given in cases of indigent circumstances of the family to tied over immediate financial crises and anyone who is major whether wife or children can be given at that point of time. The Page 4 of 5 OA No. 708 of 2012 compassionate appointment cannot wait for someone to become major then his claim as a right can survive because that goes against the grain in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka and Ors vs. Umadevi And Others - [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. In which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
".......Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognized by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution....."
8. Uma Devi judgment (supra) read with para six of the ratio of the Judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), I should have no doubt that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
9. Hence, on merit itself there is no case, hence, there is no need to examine other contentions which is raised by the applicant. The applicant is advised to equip himself for any other job except compassionate appointment for which he is absolutely not eligible at this point of time. Hence, I pass the following order:-
"The OA is dismissed. Associated MAs, if any, shall stand disposed off. No costs".
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member (A) /Piyush/ Page 5 of 5