Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikram Singh vs Cpwd on 7 October, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 1040/2015
New Delhi, this the 7th day of October, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
Vikram Singh,
Aged 31 years,
S/o Late Shri Kundan Singh
Ex-Beldar (Group 'D' employee)
R/o 42, Gali No.1,
Sarpanch Ka Bara,
Mandawali, Fazalpur,
Delhi-110092.
And also at:
Village Dhudhaliya (Mehar),
Post Office Gana (Chaukhutia)
Tehsil-Chaukhutia
District Almora (Uttrakhand)
PIN-263656. .. Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri B.B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with
Shri Aditya Shandilya)
Versus
1. Central Public Works Department
Through its Director General (Works)
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Chief Engineer,
New Delhi Zone 2,
Central Public Works Department,
Vidyut Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Near Cannaught Place,
New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri R.K. Sharma)
2 OA 1040/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant's father, who was a Beldar with the respondents, died on 26.09.1999. The respondents granted sanction for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground vide letter dated 11.03.2003. He was approved for appointment relaxing his age as well as educational qualification and kept on a waiting list. Till 2009, the applicant was informed that he is still on the waiting list. In fact, his waiting list position improved from 107 to 102 during this period. Vide letter dated 04.05.2011, the applicant was informed that the respondents have now taken a decision to cancel the waiting list. However, the applicant pursued with this matter and ultimately, vide letter dated 13.06.2014, the applicant was informed as follows:-
"Regarding details of unmarried daughters and sons of deceased Government Employee, you have mentioned that you have contracted marriage. In this regard, it is stated/intimated that whenever, the applicant, i.e. who has applied for compassionate appointment, got himself/herself married before getting/obtaining the Government job, he automatically becomes disqualified for compassionate appointment. Therefore you are hereby informed that your compassionate appointment case could not be processed further owing to your married status and hence the case is closed for ever."
2. Before passing of this order, the applicant had been informed that they have lost documents pertaining to his case and, therefore, he should provide those documents, which were provided by the applicant vide letter dated 26.04.2014. The applicant is aggrieved 3 OA 1040/2015 by the fact that his case has been rejected solely on the ground that he is a married son.
3. The arguments of the respondents are as follows:
(i) that the applicant is seeking redressal after 12 years and, hence, this is time barred.
(ii) the applicant has not exhausted departmental remedy in violation of Rule 20 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
(iii) the provision to include married son also as a dependent was in accordance with clarification dated 25.02.2015, wherein it was stipulated that this benefit would be available from that date, i.e. 25.02.2015 and compassionate appointment already settled vide earlier clarification dated 30.05.2013 (which stated that married sons are not eligible as they are not treated to be dependent on the Govt. servant) may not be reopened.
(iv) that the applicant was informed way back vide letter dated 04.05.2011 that the waiting list has been cancelled and no reconsideration can be made on this issue.
(v) learned counsel relies on order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4217/2014 dated 19.08.2016 to state that in a similar case, the O.A. was dismissed holding that the clarification date 25.02.2015 was effective from the date of this clarification and the applicant in 4 OA 1040/2015 that case was married prior to that date and, therefore, the order in that case should apply.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:
(i) The respondents cannot take recourse to any argument beyond what has been stated in the impugned order dated 13.06.2014, in which the only ground stated for rejection of his prayer is that "he is a married son". He relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others (2013) 10 SCC 95.
(ii) The original scheme only states that dependent sons are eligible; there is no mention of his eligibility being valid only if he is unmarried. In fact, in this regard, learned counsel relied on the judgments in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Bimla Devi (LPA 429/2014), Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.12478/1995) and Jayalakshmi vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd. (WP No.22171/2013), in which the Hon'ble High Courts have categorically held that the distinction between married and unmarried son is invalid.
(iii) Referring to clarification Nos. 12 and 13 of 2013 clarification, it is stated that it would be clear from these clarifications that the status as on the date of death of the Govt. servant is relevant and 5 OA 1040/2015 not thereafter. As on the date of the death of the Govt. servant, the applicant was unmarried.
(iv) The applicant's case had been processed and he was intimated that he has been put on the waiting list for consideration whenever vacancy arises till 2009. His position improved in the waiting list and he was informed by the respondents accordingly. It was only in 2011 the waiting list was cancelled. However, in 2014, he was informed that they have lost their record and requested him to file certain documents to reconstruct the file. The applicant sent those documents. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned order.
(v) There is no time limit prescribed in the scheme within which the case has to be decided. Earlier there was a time limit of three years which, admittedly, has been removed now.
(vi) There is no delay in this case for two reasons:
(a) The applicant had filed his request for compassionate appointment within five months of the death of his father.
In fact, he was cleared and kept on waiting list. The respondents lost his file and on documents supplied by him, reconstructed the file. Therefore, the delay, if at all any, has been on the part of the respondents.
(b) The impugned order is dated 13.06.2014 and the O.A. has been filed on 13.03.2015, i.e. well within a period of one 6 OA 1040/2015 year prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(vii) The scheme does not provide for any departmental remedy and, therefore, the applicant had to approach this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
5. The applicant has prayed for the following relief based on the above arguments:
"(i) Set aside the communication dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure P-14) disqualifying the applicant for compassionate appointment and closing his case therefor;
(ii) Direct the Respondents to restore the relative position of the Applicant in the Wait List for appointment on compassionate grounds vis-à-vis other applicants as it stood prior to deletion of names in 2009 from the Wait List of applicants cleared for appointment and appoint the applicant in his rightful turn."
6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides and perused the pleadings, relevant documents and judgments cited.
7. The law as quoted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is only the reasons stated in the impugned order which is relevant, is well settled and, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted. The respondents have rejected his claim vide order dated 13.06.2014 only on the ground that he 7 OA 1040/2015 was a married son. Therefore, only this issue needs to be considered.
8. On this issue, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the cases cited above, viz. Bimla Devi (supra), Surinder Singh (supra) and Jayalakshmi (supra). The Hon'ble High Courts have clearly held that the distinction between married and unmarried son is invalid. In face of that, the distinction of married and unmarried son cannot be taken as a reason for rejection. In fact, the respondents themselves have now issued a clarification dated 25.02.2015 stating that married sons are also to be considered. Moreover, what is relevant is the status of the applicant at the time of death of his father. I am persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that clarification Nos. 12 and 13 and the scheme provisions clearly have to be interpreted as the relevant time being the time of death. At the time of death of his father, the applicant was not married. Therefore, the argument of the respondents that, as he was a married son, his case could not be considered, cannot be accepted in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts, the scheme and the clarifications mentioned above and on these grounds, the impugned order has to go.
9. Though Rashmi Metaliks (supra) judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been cited above stating that only reasons 8 OA 1040/2015 stated in the impugned order have to be gone into, even on all the other objections raised by the respondents also, I do not find any merit as :
(i) there is no delay as the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment well in time as well as there is no delay in filing this O.A. as the rejection order is dated 13.06.2014 and the O.A. is filed on 13.03.2015, i.e. within a limit of one year under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(ii) The scheme does not elaborate on what departmental remedies can be sought. In fact, the respondents also in their reply have not stated clearly what are the departmental remedies which are available to the applicant. Therefore, this argument also is rejected.
(iii) The facts and circumstances in OA No. 4217/2014 are different. In the present OA, the respondents had sanctioned appointment of the applicant and kept him on the waiting list whereas this was not so in OA No.4217/2014.
10. In view of above discussion, this O.A. is allowed. Order dated 13.06.2014 is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to restore the relevant position of the applicant in waiting list for appointment on compassionate ground vis-a-vis other applicants as it stood prior to deletion in 2009 from the waiting list 9 OA 1040/2015 of applicants cleared for appointment and appoint the applicant in his rightful turn. Accordingly, no order as to costs.
(P.K. Basu) Member (A) /Jyoti/