Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Raghavendra Chari vs Dept Of Posts on 18 April, 2019
i \ x, IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No.461/2018 Date of Order : 38.04.2019 Between ;
P. Raghavendra Chari, S/o PVenkataramana Chari, {Ex-Group-D, Penukonda LSG/5.0.}, Aged about 37 years, Rfo H.No.7-277/A, Eguva Gadda, Penukonda -- 515 110, istrict Ananthapur. ~ Applicant, ek, And
1. Union of India, represented by The Director General, Posts, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 1.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, A.BCircle, Hyderabad.
3. The Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, ae 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hindupur Division, Hindupur ~~ 515 204. .. Respondents. Counsel for the Applicant vo Vis. Rachana Kumari, Advocate Counsel forthe Respondents ~. MraAMiaya Bhaskar Babu, Addi.CGSC CORAM:
Hon'ble MrJustice R.Kantha Rao. Member (Judi.} tafs ORALOROER Heard Mrs.Rachana Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrlakshman representing MrAVijaya Bhaskar Babu, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The father of the applicant was initially appointed as EDMC/DA at.
Darsinamala 8.0. a/w Dharmavaram R.5. 5.0. on 09.08.1983. He was promoted to Group-D in Penukonda Sub-Post Office, Hindupur Division, Ananthapur District w.e.f, 11.05.1990. While so, in the year 2000 the applicant's father had developed a degease known as Sequalate Peripheral Vascular. According to the applicant an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was spent by the family to cure the decease, but the same was not cured, The doctors ultimately having found no other way decided to ampute both the fore foot of his legs and three fingers of his right hand and palm of his left hand and the same was done in the year 2004, by which time the father of the applicant was aged 52 years. After the amputations the applicant's father was totally incapacitated to work with his hands and became immobile. it is submitted by the applicant that his father applied far medical invalidation and to retire him from service on medical invalidation grounds on several occasions by representations dated 22.02.2004 and 22.02.2008. He was allowed to go on leave, but his request for retirement on medical invalidation was not considered, in fact the applicant was fo retire on attaining superannuation wef 30.06.2012.
£ 2of8 Le Ene 22D, .
The respondents however ultimately ie applicant to Medical Board for medical examination on 13.04.2010. He appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board declared him medically invalid on the ground that he was suffering fram Sequalae of Peripheral Vascular which resulted in bilateral forefoot amputation with below elbow amputation left side with partial amputation of right middie ring and little fingers with deformity of right hand and wrist and loss of left hand due to below elbow amputation. The medical board declared that he will not be able to perform his duties. The medical board issued certificate dated 16.05.2010 to that effect. Basing on the above medical report the 4" respondent permitted the applicant to retire from service on medical invalidation wet 11.06.2010 Le. the date on which he was declared incapacitated permanently by the Medical Board vide memo dated 18.06.2010. He was discharged from duties wef 23.06.2010.
3. it requires to be mentioned in this context that while the applicant's x father was on leave the applicant was allowed to discharge the duties of the applicant's father from 2003 onwards as a substitute. {ft is said that after the retirement of his father on medical invalidation, the burden of the entire family fell on the applicant. The applicant made representations to the respandents seeking compassionate appointment on 17.11.2011 and 20.06.2013. The applicant passed B.A. B.Ed. and undertook to work as GDS. The respondents vide memo dated 19.04.2014 communicated to the applicant that his claim for Zé Sof L foe eoenem E appointment an compassionate grounds was rejected due to limited number of vacancies under 5% of total DR vacancies and also on the ground that he did not --
merit selection in the relative merit points prescribed by the Directorate. in this context it is submitted by the applicant that as per the chart enclosed to the meme initially it was mentioned that the applicant secured 52 points and ultimately it was corrected as he secured only 4? points. The grievance of the applicant is that the merit points have not been calculated properly by the respondents.
a. Assailing the said rejection order, the applicant filed OA. 7323/2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.07 2017 disposed of the OA directing the respondents to place the matter again before the Circle Relaxation Committee for reconsideration of the applicant's case for compassionate appointment against future vacancies as per the DoP&T OM dated 26.07.2012. Subsequently the case of the applicant was examined by the CRC in its meeting held on 06.11.2017, 16.01.2018 and 05.02.2018. But the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the father of the applicant who was a Government servant retired on medical invalidation after attaining the age of 57 years and therefore the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
it is under these circumstances, the applicant filed the present OA.
dos Ww a
5. The respondents contended reply statement that in the first instance they have properly calculated the SHE points, the applicant did not get the minimum merit points required for selection and therefore his case was rejected. Again the case of the applicant was examined after Tribunal passed the order dated 24.07.2017 in 0.A.732/2015 and the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that his father retired on medical invalidation after attaining the age of 57 years.
6. The point for determination in the OA therefore is as to whether the case of the applicant requires reconsideration.
7. The respondents relied on Annexure-R-9 DoP&T OM dated 16.01.2013 dealing with the scheme for compassionate appointment. Accarding to this scheme if a Government servant is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination} Rules, 1957 or the corresponding provision in 'the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years i57 years for erstwhile Group 'D' Government servants) or is retred on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS {Pension} Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision In the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group 'D' Gavernment servants) his dependent family is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
SatS &. in the instant case admittedly the applicant's father retired on medical grounds on attaining the age of 57 years. Therefore, the contention of the respondents is that the applicant who is said to be the dependent on his - father who retired on medical grounds is not entitled for compassionate. | | | appointment. As to this the cortention of the applicant is that the applicant's father submitted representations dated 22.02.2004 and 22.02.2008 requesting the department to retire him on medical grounds. But those representations were not considered, the department dragged the matter HH 2010 and ultimately retired him on medical invalidation on 23.06.2010. Therefore, according to the applicant the date on which his father made a representation seeking permission to retire him on medical invalidation has to be taken into consideration and he shail not be made to suffer on account of the delay on the part of the department. The applicant filed copies of representations dated 22.04.2004 and 22.08.2008 as material papers marked as Annexure-A-G. in these representations the applicant's father made a request for retirement on medical grounds. The letters bear the respective dates of Penukonda Post Office. Therefore the contention of the applicant is that his father in fact made the first representation requesting for * retirement on medical invalidation on 22.02.2004. In the instant case the applicant's father was unable to work since 2003 and the applicant who is his son was working as an outsider in the Jeave vacancy of his father, The dacuments submitted by the applicant obviously indicate that his father has been making a request for retirement on medical invalidation from 22.04.2004 onwards. [tis not f / 6 af [tax % x & 8 % the case of the respondents that t oe aR and therefore he was on leave continuously. If the respondents considered the request of the applicant for retirement on medical invalidation promptly, he would have been retired on medical grounds in the year 2004 itself. Therefore, the applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay and latches on the part of the department. Further in the earlier OA filed by the applicant the respondents did not take the ground that the applicant is not entitled for & compassionate appointment as his father retired on medical invalidation after attaining the age of 57 years. However, under the scheme of compassionate appointment if a person retires on medical invalidation after 57 years his aw:
are estopped from taking the plea that the applicant's father retired on medical grounds after attaining the age of 57 years and therefore the applicant who is his dependent is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore the vigor of the scheme which is mentioned herein above will not apply in the instant case and his case has to be considered weet 32.04.2004 when his father made representation requesting for retirement on medical grounds. Fars aoe EE, OS OCU O SESS dependent is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But having regard to the unique features of the present case, the claim of the applicant requires to be examined, On account of the delay on the part of the respondents in not considering the request of the applicant for medical invalidation, in my view they s father was able to werk, but was on leave due to some other reasons. The fact is that he was incapacitated to work Cteeaerecares, 9, For the foregoing reasons the OA deserves to succeed. The respondents are directed to place the case of the apglicant before the Circle OS Relaxation Cornmmittee for considering his case far appointment on compassionate grounds in the forthcoming meetings and the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the light of the existing rules governing the scheme and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. This Tribunal vide interim order dated 09.05.2018 directed nat to fi up the post of GDSMD, Penukonda SO which is at 329 of the notification dated 25.04.2018 until further orders. In view of the disposal of the OA with the aforementioned directions the respondents are directed not to fill up the post of GDOSMD, Penukonda SO till final consideration of the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment by the respondents.
pra Boke leateetee oateatetelteateactafteatertealtalteateeie eataetea'teltel tee talceatetataateattatageatnaatale scele'eeateettaayeaytngestna tar iieasteaateatettbeatenttetnlteateattatn ete MINN tee eA eae aa ean lated alta abet ateaiteicegaclneenenaestegs eh tates tallies a