Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
D Nirmala vs M/O Communications on 14 June, 2023
tt CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH DATED THIS THE2?" DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SHRI. T. JACOB, MEMBER (A) OA 310/00296/2020 D. Nirmala, S W/o. Late. K. Damodaran No.2/200, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Veerapuram, Avadi, Chennai - 600 055. ... Applicant - By Advocate Mr. V. Jaishankar Versus 1, The Chief Post Master General (REP) O/o. The Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle Anna Salai Head Post Office, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2. The Superintendent, R.M.S., Chennai Sorting Division, ; Egmore, Chennai-600 008. «Respondents By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member (A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant under Sec.i9 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To direct the respondents herein to appoint the applicant's son namely D.Jai Ganesh in any post of the respondents' Postal Department in compassionate grounds, ii} To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the -
case,"
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
i). The applicant's husband late K.Damodaran, worked as a Mail Man in | the Postal Department (Group D) from 03.07.1998 to 07.09.2011 passed away while he was in service. The applicant also obtained legal heirship certificate from the concerned department vide legal heirship certificate No.T.P.No.6822-2011-A7, dated 15.11.2011. The applicant states that the following persons are legal heirs of applicant's husband namely © K.Damodaran.
S.No. | Legal heirs Name | Age Relationship | Status i D. Nirmala 37 Wife Widow 2 D. Yamini 21 Daughter Unmarried 3 D. Jaiganesh i4 Son Minor
--,
ii) Thereafter applicant's daughter got married and her son became _ major. The applicant applied to the ist respondent seeking compassionate ground appointment. She passed 10th Standard and she gave a representation to the 1st respondent to request to appoint any post in 1* respondent department and the same was forwarded to the 2" respondent by the Ist respondent vide letter No.REP/47-3/2012 dated 08.06.2012 and _ the 2nd respondent sent a letter to the applicant vide letter No.B110/K.Damodaran, dated 05.07.2012 stating that the Circle Relaxation Committee could not recommend her case and thereby rejected the same. The applicant's son Jai Ganesh completed his graduation as B.C.A. and the applicant gave a representation on 27.12.2013 to the ist respondent and . to request to appoint her son namely D.Jai Ganesh any post in ist respondent department and the ist respondent sent a letter to the applicant vide letter No.REP/31-1-2012 dated 16.01.2014 stating that "your son on compassionate grounds in the place of yours, cannot be entertained as there are no grounds to interfere the decision of CRC and change of . person is not permissible as per extant rulings. Hence the OA.
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
a) The inaction of the respondents is arbitrary and illega!
b) -- Itis willful and wanton
c) Itis violation of natural justice
g)
h) It is malafide and illegal Non-availability of Direct Recruitment Vacancy in the respected cadre under RRR quota.
Less indigent as per relative merit points under RRR quota. As per the DOPT OM, dated 26.07.2012, the time limit of 3 years prescribed vide DOPT OM No.14014/19/2002-Estt(D), dated 5% May 2003 for considering cases of compassionate appointment has been withdrawn, all the not recommended cases of CRC-2015 will be placed before the next CRC and examined on merit along with the fresh cases received, subject to the availability of vacancies under -- RRR Rules.
In these circumstances, the above DOPT OM No.14014/19/2002 Estt (D) dated 5th May 2003 says that to consider compassionate appointment within a period of 3 years, that the above time limit has been relaxed by the Central Government. As DOPT OM No.14014/02/2012 Estt., dated 16.01.2013 and amended from time to time any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit and decision taken on merits in each case. The 2nd respondent says that "all the not recommended cases of CRC-2015 will be placed before the next CRC and examined on merits along with the fresh case" and till date, the 1st and 2nd respondent not to consider the above said representation dated 27.12.2013 and more over the ist respondent committee | recommended the compassionate appointment vide No.REP/36- CCE/2019-1, dated 22.02.2019 and the above said order passed by the ist respondent on that time, the 1st respondent did not consider her son's application to appoint on compassionate ground.
Till today no order is passed and no action is taken to appoint the applicant's son on compassionate ground.
----s
i) The respondents herein have declined to appoint the applicant's son on compassionate ground. The applicant met the respondents' officials several time in person, the applicant was orally assured that applicant's son would be considered and appointed. The respondent is adopting dilatory tactics with an ulterior motive and malafide intention. The respondents has not passed any order till today for reasons best known.
4. The Respondents have filled a detailed reply.
i). It is submitted that K. Damodaran, while working as Mailman (Group D) ~ in Chennai Sorting Division, died on 7.9.2011 leaving behind his wife, a daughter and a minor son. The applicant submitted a representation dated 28.11.2011 requesting to consider her for appointment on compassionate grounds. As per Postal Directorate's letter no. 37-36/2004-SPB I/C dated 20.01.2010, it was ordered to decide the cases of compassionate | appointments by allocating points, based on various attributes so as to achieve the objective of the scheme and to ensure complete transparency. Tt is submitted that the main objective of the compassionate appointment is to relieve the family of the deceased Government Servant from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. It is submitted that | for deciding the claims for compassionate appointments against the ceiling of 5% of Direct Recruitment quota of vacancies in an effective manner, with reference to the financial condition of the family like assets, liabilities, size of the family, essential needs of the family like education of children etc., the Postal Directorate, in letter no. 37-36/2004-SPB-I/C dated 20.01.2010 prescribed a system of allocation of points to various 3ttributes 6 such as family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of earning . members, movable and immovable property, number of dependents, number of unmarried daughters, number of minor children and left over service, etc., with 15 grace points for the widow of the deceased. It was instructed that this method should be strictly followed with immediate effect, keeping in view the instructions issued by the Department of .
Personnel & Training from time to time.
it}. It is submitted that synopsis and other relevant records were collected from the applicant and forwarded by the Office of the 2nd Respondent to the Office of the ist Respondent on nil.1.2012. Itis submitted that Applicant case was placed before the CRC-2012 to assess -- the degree of indigence among all the applicants for compassionate | appointment within the prescribed ceiling of 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies. However, first respondent office vide letter no:REP/47-3/2012 dated 08.06.2012 has informed that the Circle Relaxation Committee could not recommend the Applicant's case and thereby rejected the same based on the following grounds:
(a) Less indigent as per Relative Merit points
(b) Non-availability of 5% Direct Recruitment vacancy.
ii). It is further submitted that Relative Merit point based on monthly income, property, number of dependents, left over service, grace points for widow was arrived in this case was 64. Educational Qualification of the applicant is X Std and her case has been examined for Postman/MTS cadres. The Relative Merit Point(RMP) for the last selected candidate in | respect of Postman and MTS cadre in CRC 2012, CRC 2015 and CRC for 2016-17 was as follows:
RMP for Last recommended RMP for Last CRC candidate in respect of | recommended candidate Postman cadre in respect of MTS cadre 2012 75 91 2015 73 85 2106- 3017 70 78 Hence, the case of the applicant was rejected in the CRC 2012,CRC 2015 and CRC 2016-2017. It is further submitted that the appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only on the recommendation and approval by the Circle Relaxation Committee. Therefore, the decision of the ~ CRC was only communicated to the applicant by the 2nd respondent.
iv). It is submitted that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 27.12.2013 to the O/o 1st Respondent seeking employment under compassionate grounds to her son D.Jai Ganesh stating " In the event of _ hot considered my application atleast, consider her son for appointment of compassionate ground." Further Circle office vide letter No. REP/31-
1/2012 dtd.16.1.2014 informed the applicant that her case was already considered by Circle Relaxation Committee and not recommended, due to lack of Relative indigency as per Relative Merit points when compared to _ the claimants whose cases have been processed along with her case and recommended. Further, there were no vacancies available to consider her case as the percentage of vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment is only 5% of Direct Recruitment quota. Hence, the request for employment to her son on compassionate grounds in the place of applicant, cannot be entertained as there are no grounds to interfere the decision of CRC and change of person is not permissible as per extant rulings and rejected her claim.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied on the following decisions in support of their contentions.
i. | Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs B.Kishore 2012 (2) SCC (L&S), li. Judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA- 2775/2011 dated 8.6.2011, in the case of Smt. Somvati Vs Uol, iii, Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.08.2013, in CA. No. 6348/2013, filed by MGB Gramin Bank Vs Chakravarti Singh.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents of records.
7. The issue for consideration in this OA is whether the applicant's son is entitled for compassionate appointment or not.
8. The Relative Merit Point system introduced by Postal Directorate vide letter No.37-36/2004-SPB I/C dated 20.01.2010 is only a tool to assess the indigency of the family of the claimant, in an objective, uniform and transparent manner considering the following material points:
a. Restriction of offering compassionate appointment only upto 5% of Direct Recruitment quota vacancies as per DOPT orders, b. Assessing whether the family is really indigent, as held by various Courts in their observations.
c, The introduction of merit point system in letter no. 37-36/2004SPB T/C dated 20.1.2010 is only the comprehensive guidelines and it is only the reiteration of the earlier instructions issued in DOPT OM No.14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 9.10.98& DoPT in O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013... The main objective of this system, prescribing allocation of points to various attributes such as family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of earning members, movable and immovable property, no. of dependents, No.of unmarried daughters, No.of minor children and left over service etc,. is aimed to have objectivity and ensure complete transparency and uniformity in the selection process. This was also framed as per the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated 04.05.1994in the case of Umesh Kr. Nagpal Vs State of Haryana (1994(2) SLR 677), wherein the Apex Court clearly held that the point of indigence / financial distress of the family of the deceased employee is the main criteria for offering Compassionate Appointment and hence this is the well settled position of law and hence it is very well sustainable.
d, The merit point system introduced in Jetter no. 37-36/2004-SPB T/C dated 20.1.2010 are only administrative guidelines for processing the compassionate appointment claims with a view to handle them in a more objective and transparent manner with the object of ensuring uniformity and there ts in no deviation of the basic principles of compassionate scheme framed in DOP&T OM dated 9.10.1998 &DoPT in O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013.
109. Relative Merit point (RMP) based on monthly income, property, number of dependents, left over service, grace points for widow was arrived in the instant case was 64. Educational Qualification of the | applicant is X Std and her case has been examined for Postman/MTS cadres. The relative merit point(RMP) for the last selected candidate in respect of Postman and MTS cadre in CRC 2012, CRC 2015 and CRC for 2016-17 was as follows:.
RMP for Last RMP for Last CRC recommended candidate recommended in respect of Postman candidate in respect cadre of MTS cadre 2012 75 91 2015 73 85 2106- 2017 70 78 Hence, the case of the applicant was rejected in the CRC 2012, CRC 2015 . and CRC 2016-2017. The Appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only on the recommendation and approval by the Circle Relaxation Committee. The decision of the CRC was communicated to the applicant by the 2nd respondent.
10. The request for considering compassionate appointment to the applicant's son cannot be acceded to, since the applicant's case (i.e one of the dependents of the deceased official) was already considered and rejected by the CRC. The respondents are correct in applying the methodology of weightage points while considering the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Appointment on compassionate .
ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further change of ik request for employment to son on compassionate grounds in the place of the applicant cannot be entertained as there are no grounds to interfere with the decision of CRC Further there are 15 grace points for the widow of . the deceased as per Relative Merit point (RMP) system.
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 3570 of '2014 (decided on 06.10.2017) has held as under:-
"8. The philosophy behind giving compassionate appointment is just to help the family in harness to get over the immediate crisis due to the loss of sole bread winner. This category of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after certain pertod, when the crisis is over. More so, the financial status of the family is also to be looked into as per the scheme framed by the employer while giving compassionate appointment and such appointment cannot be conferred contrary to the parameters of the scheme."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director of Education (Secondary) and another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others (1998 SCC (L&S) 1302) have observed in para 8 that "the provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions of making appointment by following prescribed procedure. It is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.
12Care has therefore to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate appointment, which is in the nature of an exception to the General provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee."
13. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & Others Vs. Prabhat Singh will squarely applicable in this case, wherein it is held as follows:
"The courts and tribunals should not fail prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. The courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment to all those who seek a court's intervention. The courts and tribunals must understand that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion wherein directions are issued for appointment, on compassionate grounds could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are misplaced sympathy and compassion."13
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of G. Rajbabu vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) in W.P.3882/2014 dated 06.10.2017 after dealing with various Supreme Court Judgements on the subject has held as follows:-
"28. In view of the fact that the father of the writ petitioner died in the year 1996 and now after a lapse of 23 years, the question of providing compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner does not arise at all."
15. Thus, telescoping the rule position, the object of the scheme and conditions attached to the grant of compassionate appointment and the decisions of the Apex Court upon the facts of this case, it would be evident that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions attached to the scheme (Less indigent as per relative merit points under RRR quota.) and if appointment is given to the applicant's son it shall be only at the cost of any other well deserved case. The respondents are thus absolutely right in declining the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
16. In the conspectus of discussion in the foregoing:paragraphis, I.do net find any merit in this O.A. wich is accordingly dismissed. Noyspsts.
oe ae wae fae a tN !