Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sh. Hans Raj ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 28 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 426/HR/2011.
Chandigarh: this 28th day of November, 2011.
HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
Dinesh Kumar Yadav s/o late Sh. Hans Raj Yadav
R/o House no. 279-80, Topkhana Bazar
Ambala Cantt.
..Applicant.
(By: Shri Gaurav Gaur proxy for Sh. S.M. Sharma
counsel for applicant.)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi.
2. Chief General Manager, Telecom.
Himachal Pradesh Circle (Shimla).
3. The Circle High Power Committee
C/o Telecom. Himachal Pradesh Circle (Shimla).
.Respondents.
(By: Shri Jagdeep Jaswal proxy for Sh. D.R. Sharma
counsel for the respondents).
O R D E R
(By: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:-
i)The applicant be ordered to be appointed on compassionate grounds.
ii)The respondents be directed to redress the points so awarded in Annexure A/2, dated 19.11.2008.
2. The facts as projected by the applicant are that his father who was working as Telephone Mechanic in the Respondent Department died on 5.3.2005, leaving behind 5 dependents including his widow and thereafter the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.12.2008. Pursuant to his application seeking information under the RTI Act, he was informed that the applicant has been awarded 49 points which are less than the minimum 55 points required for submission to BSNL corporate office vide Annexure A/1, dated 27.9.2008. He has stated that in the letter dated 27.9.2008, it has been mentioned that the instructions issued by BSNL Corporate Office vide letter dated 27.6.2007, a Circle High Powered Committee has been constituted for considering the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the applicant, since his father had expired on 5.3.2005, the instructions dated 27.6.2007 cannot be made applicable to his cases. He has therefore stated that the Circle High Powered Committee has wrongly assessed the points system which is arbitrary. Hence this OA.
3. The applicant has also filed MA 420/2011 for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
4. The respondents have stated in their reply that the eligibility condition for appointment on compassionate grounds issued by DOPT vide OM dated 9.10.1998 is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Thereafter, the BSNL issued instructions vide letter dated 27.12.2006 to stop processing/follow-up action on cases for appointment on compassionate grounds pending issuance of necessary guidelines for future course of action. The case of the applicant was received by the respondents on 10.7.2006 and in the meantime, the above-mentioned instructions were issued by BSNL Corporate Office. They have further stated that for making the assessment criteria uniform, balanced and objective and having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities of the deceased employee etc. for recommending the relative indigent condition of the family, the BSNL introduced the weightage point system vide letter dated 27.6.2007. Accordingly, cases with 55 or more net points are prima facie treated as eligible for consideration and cases with net points less than 55 are treated as non-indigent. They have further stated that the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority along with others in November, 2008 and since the net points scored by the applicant comes to 49 under the weightage point system, his case could not have been treated as indigent and was accordingly rejected.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder generally reiterating the averments made in the OA.
6. We have given our careful consideration to the respective submissions made by the parties and also carefully perused the records of the case.
7. It is also seen that the OA is barred by limitation as the cause of action to the applicant arose in September, 2008 when the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected in September, 2008. He filed this OA in May, 2011 after a long delay. The applicant has filed MA 420/2011 for condonation of delay. After going through the MA, this Court finds no sustainable grounds for condoning the delay. Thus, the OA deserves to be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. However, even if we were to condone this delay, the applicant would not have a case even on merit as is discussed hereinbelow.
8. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that as per instructions dated 27.6.2007, a Circle High Powered Committee was constituted for considering the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per weightage system i.e. number of dependents, basic family pension, remaining service, terminal benefits, accommodation, and monthly income etc. In a case with net points 55 or more, the minutes of the Circle HPC were to be sent to the Corporate Office for consideration and in a case with net points below 55, the family was to be treated as not living in an indigent condition and such requests were to be rejected. In the present case, as per the check list with reference to Weightage Point System, the maximum points allotted to the applicant are 49 which is less than the minimum 55 points required for submission to the Corporate Office. Thus, his case could not be treated as indigent and was accordingly rejected (A-1). Therefore, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents. As per the comparative statement submitted by the respondents in respect of the cases considered along with the case of the applicant, we find that the relative indigent condition of the applicant has been adjudged fairly in comparison with the circumstances and net points in other cases.
9. As per instructions dated 5.5.2003 issued by Govt. of India, the maximum time for which a persons name can be kept under consideration for offering appointment on compassionate grounds, is three years. After three years, if such appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again. On this basis also, the applicant cannot be granted any relief at this stage as the father of the applicant had expired on 14.7.2006 and the case of the applicant could be considered upto 14.7.2009 which period has already elapsed.
10. The Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to protect the family of the deceased from financial destitution. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 28.11.2011.
ms
1
OA No. 426/HR//2011.