Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt. Vimla Bai Choudhary vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2013
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.827 of 2011
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 14th day of August, 2013
Honble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
1. Smt. Vimla Bai Choudhary, Widow of
Late Lalla Prasad Choudhary, aged about 53 years
2. Rajesh Choudhary, Son of Late Lalla Prasad Choudhary,
Aged about 22 years,
Both Resident of House No. 1988, Ranjhi Purani Basti,
Jhanda Chowk, Post Azad Nagar,P.S. Ranjhi,
Jabalpur (MP)-482005 - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Rakesh Pandey)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (Production), Indian Ordnance Factories,
New Delhi, Pin-110001
2. The Chairman/Director General,
Ordnance Factories Board, 10-A, Shahid Khudiram Bose Marg,
Kolkatta (W.B.), Pin-700001
3. Sr. General Manager, Ordnance Factory Khamaria,
Jabalpur, Pin-482005 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Mishra)
ORDER
By Dhirendra Mishra, JM.-
Through this Original Application the applicants have prayed for direction to the respondents to consider their case for compassionate appointment in place of late Lalla Prasad Choudhary - father of applicant No.2 and husband of applicant No.1, who died in harness on 21.08.2008, while working under the respondents as Machinist Highly Skilled.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants case was considered by the respondents and rejected vide order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure A-1) on the basis of comparative merit for the second year. His case was finally rejected vide order dated 30.8.2011 (Annexure A-2) on the ground that the applicants could secure only 75 merit points in a hundred point scale whereas only those candidate who secured 82 or above merit points were recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds by the Board of Officers. However, the case of the applicants has not been considered as per circular dated 18.01.2006 (Annexure A-6), while rejecting their claim vide order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure A-1). The applicants being the members of scheduled caste community deserved special consideration, which has not been given in the present case and in the document of Annexure A-2 dated 30.08.2011 it has been mentioned that their case was considered thrice, however, applicants were never communicated about the outcome of the first consideration.
3. On the other hand Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application of applicant No.1 for appointment of applicant no.2 on compassionate ground, submitted on 5.12.2008, after the death of her husband was duly considered by the respondents as per procedure in vogue on three occasions after investigation of the family circumstances and pecuniary conditions of the member of the deceased employee, by the Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, who submitted her report after obtaining information from applicant No.1 and recording her statement vide Annexure R-2 and R-3. On the basis of the information of Annexure R-3, the case of the applicants was processed thrice by strictly following the DOPTs instructions. As the applicants scored only 56 merit points out of 100 for the first and second year, their case could not be recommended by the Board of Officers as the candidates who secured 69 and 66 and above merits points respectively were only recommended. Thereafter, applicants case was again considered for the third time, as per instructions of the DOPT then in vogue and they secured 75 marks out of 100 whereas the candidates who secured 82 or above points were recommended for compassionate appointment. On each occasion the applicants were apprised about consideration of their cases for compassionate appointment as would be evident from the documents filed by the applicants themselves. The contention of the applicants that revised guidelines of Annexure A-6 was issued on 18.1.2006 is incorrect as the aforesaid instructions were issued by the Ministry of Defence only on 06.8.2010 and the same were forwarded vide OFB letter dated 11.8.2010 and the said letter makes only reference to earlier instructions of the OFB forwarded vide letter dated 18.1.2006.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
5. From perusal of the documents filed by the applicants it is manifestly clear that applicants case was duly processed for compassionate appointment for the first time in the year 2009 as per instructions in vogue (Annexure R-5) and the applicants were awarded 56 merit points under various heads in a hundred point scale, by assessing their case by reference to the information given by the applicants vide Annexure R-2. The counsel for the applicants could not demonstrate any error in assessing their case and awarding them 56 merit points vide Annexure R-3. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the respondents ought to have assessed their case for compassionate appointment on the basis of revised procedure for selection notified vide A-6/R-6, which was issued on 18.1.2006. However, we find that the case of the applicants has been processed by reference to A/6/R-6 in the year 2011, after those instructions were issued by the Ministry of Defence on 6.8.2010 and the same was forwarded by the OFB on 11.8.2010. The instructions of A/6/R-6 only makes reference to the instruction No.3054/A/A, which was forwarded vide OFB letter dated 18.1.2006. On close scrutiny of the documents filed by the respective parties, we are satisfied that the case of the applicants was duly processed by the Board of Officers for three years i.e. for the years 2009,2010 and 2011 as per procedure in vogue at the time of consideration and their case could not be recommended on the basis of comparative merit as the applicants could secure only 56 merit points as per procedure in vogue at the time of first two consideration whereas in the said period candidates who secured 69, and 66 merits points and above were recommended for appointment. The applicants case was subsequently considered by the Board of Officers as per procedure prescribed for assessment as per Annexure A/6/R/6 and at that time the applicants were awarded 75 merit points under various heads as is evident from Annexure R-6/2, by applying the guidelines of Annexure A-6, whereas the candidates who secured 82 or above points were recommended for compassionate appointment. The Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T.Latheesh, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646 has clearly held that scope of judicial review of objective findings of such authorities arrived on appreciation of full facts is limited and normally it should not be disturbed.
6. Thus, taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants are not entitled to any relief sought for in this Original Application.
7. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member rkv 4 Sub: Compassionate appointment OA No.827/2011 Page 4 of 4