Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
(U/S vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 1 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 1st DAY OF May, 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1135 OF 2006 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985) Ram Swaroop Lal Srivastava son of late U.L. Srivstava 2, Shiv Shankar Prasad Srivastava son of Sri R.S. Lal Srivastava Both are resident of 249/307, Bhsauli Tola, Khuldabad, District Allahabad. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri Satish Dwivedi Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad. 3. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway Kolkata. 4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri R. Dixit holding brief of Shri D. Awasthi. (Reserved on 24.2.2012) O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY:- HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A The order dated 22.12.1997 passed by respondent No.4 i.e. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad rejecting the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this O.A. The undisputed fact is that the applicant was medically decategorized and he sought voluntary retirement and thereafter, as per averments in the O.A., having been given voluntary retirement w.e.f. 25.3.1997, the applicant No.2, being his son was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Circular of Railway Board dated 22.9.1995, but the case was rejected by the impugned order. Thereafter, on 14.7.98 and 15.7.98 representations to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds like other similarly situated persons was moved, followed by reminders upto 17.10.2005, when a Pension Adalat was held and the application was sent to General Manager, East Central Railway Hajipur by registered post, but the case was not considered by the respondents. One Misc. Application No 2907/06 for condonation of delay has also been moved on behalf of the applicant, stating that the delay has not occurred on the part of the applicants who have been submitting representation and reminders to re-consider the case even after the same was rejected. But, it is only on the part of the respondents that the delay occurred. The case was first rejected on 22.12.1997 and the same was served upon the applicant in the month of June, 1998 and on 14.7.1998 the representation was submitted to the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, against the order dated 22.12.97. In this representation, names of certain other similarly placed persons were also given. The family responsibility of sustaining and marriage of two daughters with meager income of the family was also indicated. In 2003, new zone known as East Central Railway with Headquarter at Hajipur was created. The applicant was given to understand that the case shall be considered by the new office. Thus, he has been hoping for positive and affirmative decision in his favour, but the same could never happen till the filing of this O.A. Emphatically, the economic condition and poverty of the family is highlighted in this O.A., stating that the family is still facing problem and it is very difficult to bear the liabilities within the meager source of income. The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that it is non speaking order because no reason for rejection has been given.
2. Respondents have filed Counter reply and raised preliminary objection of delay stating that the case of applicant for voluntary retirement was allowed w.e.f. 25.3.1994 and the representation was rejected on 22.12.1997, but the present O.A. has been filed only in the year 2006 i.e. after about delay of 10 years. No plausible reason has been given to explain this delay. Hence, it is barred by limitation as provided for under section 21 of the A.T., Act, 1985 and only on this ground the O.A. may be dismissed. Replying on the merit of the case, it has been stated in the Counter reply that at the time of voluntary retirement, the applicant No. 1 had reached about 55 years of age and had rendered 38 years, 2 months and 24 days of service and availed full retirement benefits. Accordingly, the retrial dues were paid which were sufficient to cater to the needs of the family. The case of the applicant for appointment was rejected and accordingly replied with the regrets by the impugned orders dated 22.2.1997. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138 and in the case of Amil Malik vs. State of Haryana JT-94 (Volume-3) SC 525 it has been held that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Government or public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only to be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible members of the family. Similar is the spirit of the circumstances when the government employee is medically decategorized but is not offered alternative post and he seeks to retire from service, unlike the instant case. In terms of Railway Board letter No. E(NG)11/95/RC-1/94 dated 18.1.2000, the applicant no. 2 cannot be extended the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. In para 12 of the Counter reply, it is stated that the Railway Board letter No. E (NG) II/95/RC-1194 dated 22.9.95 has been issued without giving retrospective effect, as such the instructions contained in Boards letter dated 22.4.99 will take effect from 22.9.95 whereas the applicant retired on 25.3.94. Hence Rly. Boards letter dated 22.9.95 will not be applicable in the case of the applicant. The Railway Board letter dated 10.11.2000 provides that the staff medically decategorized before the issuance of Boards letter dated 29.4.99 sought voluntary retirement but not given alternative appointment nor he has been adjusted against supernumerary post, the benefits of compassionate appointment may be extended to one ward. In the instant case the applicant was offered an alternative post of Head Clerk in scale of Rs. 1400-2300 which was not accepted by the applicant and opted for voluntary retirement. In brief, the respondents have supported the impugned order as having been passed with full application of mind and as per the provisions laid down for compassionate appointment. The O.A., according to the respondents is not tenable even on merits as well as the same having been barred by limitation.
3. On behalf of the applicant, R.A. has been filed in which all the contentions of the O.A. have by and large been reiterated denying, at the same time, the allegations in the counter reply.
4. I have heard both the counsel and perused the available documents in their pleadings. The learned counsel for the applicant has, in support of the averments in the O.A. and R.A. has repeated the same points. The learned counsel for the respondents, in addition to the oral arguments has also submitted the written arguments. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon. Supreme court already referred to above in the Counter reply. In this connection other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are : (2008) Volume-8, SCC 475, G.M., S.B.I. vs. Anju Jain and another, (2007) Volume-4 SCC 778, BI vs. Somveer Singh and (2010) Volume-4 SCCA 546 F.C.I. vs. Nizamuddin. The learned counsel for the respondents is emphatic on the point that this case is highly time barred and as per the settled law of the land, delay has not been explained in cogent and complete manner. Even on the merit, the case is not worth consideration because family got sufficient of retrial dues of applicant no.1 to sustain the family after the voluntary retirement of applicant No.1, as a result of medical decategorization. So, the benefit of Railway Board letter on appointment of compassionate ground cannot be provided.
5. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments of both the counsel, I am inclined to agree with the respondents counsel that the O.A. is highly time barred. The delay explained in the delay condonation application is neither sufficient nor convincing. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon. Supreme court in more than one judgments, in order to stake the claim, if there is delay in putting up the claim, the same has to be examined in totality and in plausible manner. The same is not explained accordingly. Even on the merit, the dispensation for appointment on compassionate ground was available for consideration immediately after the applicant No. 1 was medically decategorized and he sought voluntary retirement, if the family was facing acute poverty hindering the very sustenance of the family. The applicant no. 1 was given full retirement benefits. The alternative employment was offered, which was declined. In this background, the case for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents. I have perused the judgments cited by the respondents, which are relevant in this matter. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4. Accordingly, I observe that the O.A. lacks merit, hence dismissed. No costs.
Member (A) s.a ??
??
??
??
5