Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Rahul Nagar vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 1 April, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.3488/2012 Order Reserved on: 18.03.2013 Order pronounced on 01.04.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Mr. Rahul Nagar s/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh r/o C-2/72, Nagar Diary Near Pir Mazar Area Near Ashok Nagar New Delhi 110 096. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Amit Tewari) Versus Delhi Transport Corporation Through its Chairman cum- Managing Director Delhi Transport Corporation I.P.Estate New Delhi. The Depot Manager Delhi Transport Corporation Ghazipur Depot, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) O R D E R
The applicant, who is the son of Late Shri Mahipal Singh, who died in harness while working as Conductor in the Respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation on 10.06.2011, aggrieved by the orders of the respondents in denying him the appointment on compassionate grounds, filed the present OA.
2. The applicants father while working as Conductor met with an accident on 09.10.1998 while returning from duty and as his right leg was amputated and as he was assessed with 60% disability, the respondents retired him prematurely on 22.11.1999. The applicants father preferred CWP No.2765/2000 questioning the said premature retirement. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the father of the applicant expired on 10.06.2001. The applicant and other legal heirs pursued the WP and the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its orders dated 06.03.2002 allowed the WP and quashed the termination order dated 22.11.1999 and declared that the father of the applicant would be notionally treated to have taken back into service from the date when the respondents stopped paying full salary after termination of his services and would be treated as in continuous employment without any break in service till he expired on 10.06.2001.
3. After the aforesaid Judgement of the Honble High Court of Delhi, the applicants mother made representations in 2004 and 2005 requesting to appoint her on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. As there was no response, the mother of the applicant made a representation dated 24.01.2011 requesting to appoint the applicant, who is her elder son, instead of her.
4. The respondents vide Annexure A5 dated 11.02.2011 rejected the said claim stating that the same is not possible. Subsequent representations of the applicant were again rejected by the respondents vide Annexure A7 dated 27.03.2012 with the same endorsement.
5. The applicant submits that the rejection orders dated 11.02.2011 and 27.03.2012 are non-speaking orders and hence illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
6. The respondents filed their detailed counter and denied the OA averments. It is submitted that the applicants father died on 10.06.2011 and the application for appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds is for the first time made in January, 2011, i.e., after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of death of his father. There is also a gap of 6 years from the last application of the applicants mother and to that of the applicants representation, i.e., from 2005 to 2011. According to the respondents, the OA is barred by limitation.
7. It is further submitted that the appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the rule and meant for immediate relief to the destitute family. It is not a source of recruitment and the persons though entitled for compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to seek the same whenever they feel doing so as the same is against to the Scheme of compassionate appointment itself. When admittedly the applicant made the application for compassionate appointment in January, 2011, for the first time, after a lapse of about 6 years from the date of last representation of his mother, is not entitled to for any relief.
8. Heard Shri Amit Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the family of the late Mahendra Singh was in great shock and dismay in view of his severe accident and the illegal termination order passed by the respondents. The death of Shri Mahendra Singh on 10.06.2001 further put them in great financial and mental agony. Admittedly, the mother of the applicant made representations on 23.01.2004 and 04.03.2005 (Annexure A3 Colly.) i.e., within two years from the date of Honble Delhi High Courts order dated 06.03.3002, quashing the illegal termination order of the applicants father, requesting the respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. The respondents, who were under statutory obligation to consider her case for compassionate appointment having not performed their duty, cannot contend that the application of the applicant is a belated one. In fact, it is the continuation of the earlier representations. He further submits that the applicant who was a minor as on the date of death of his father, attained his majority in the year 2006 and obtained his graduation degree, made the representation in the year 2011 requesting to appointment him on compassionate grounds. What is to be seen is that whether the family of the deceased is still under indigent condition and without having any source of income to survive, but not the period from the date of death of the deceased to the date of consideration for compassionate appointment.
10. Per contra, Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation, while placing reliance on Para No.6 of the judgement of the Honble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 submits that grant of compassionate appointment after the lapse of a reasonable period, is impermissible. The said para No.6 reads as follows:
6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
11. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid legal proposition. However, the learned counsel has not placed any rule of the Corporation which prescribes any time limit either for making the application or for consideration on compassionate grounds, as observed by the Honble Apex Court. The Honble Apex Court in the very same Judgement at Para 2 held as under:
2. ..One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.
12. The contention that as the family of the deceased able to survive, for certain years, even after the death of the bread winner, they can survive for the rest of their life without any source of income, is unreasonable, irrational and inhuman. The respondents who failed to consider the application of the mother of the applicant which was admittedly preferred within the reasonable period, without even making any attempt to find out the financial condition of the applicants family cannot refuse to consider his case on the sole ground that much time has lapsed from the date of death of his father to the date of his application. The Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgement while cautioning the authorities not to entertain casual applications, after a considerable time, for appointment on compassionate grounds, however, observed that it is the indigent condition of the deceased family which is the paramount criteria for consideration under the Scheme of the compassionate appointment.
13. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure A5) and order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure A7) are quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the applicant, keeping in view the above observations, for compassionate appointment in any suitable post as per rules, within ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Ajay Kumar) Member (A) /nsnrvak/