Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
E Murugaiah vs M/O Railways on 27 March, 2018
1 OA No.582/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.582/2017 Dated this Thetolay, the &7*day of March, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MS, B, BHAMATHT, MEMBER (A) E.Murugalah, F/o late M.Muthukumar, SrALP/ED\No. 1/184, : Gandhi Colony, Pattapathu, Ayiraperl, _ Tenkasi Taluk, Firunelvell District, w+ Applicant (By Advocate M/s Ratto Legis ) Versus, 1.Union of India, .rep., by , ; The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai. 2,.The Chief Personnel officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai. 3.The Divisional Personnel Officer, . Salem. Diviston, Southern Railway, Salem _ ...Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. P.Srinivasan) Reserved on 16.02.2018 Pronounced on_A+.032.20/ Al bal ae ie ee a eden fe een PE . "es J Hg Snes ae RE F: AG i 2 OA No.582/2017 ORDER PER:!-HON'BLE MS.B. BHAMATHL MEMBER (A)
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative
- Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records related to the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to do the necessary to consider the request for compassionate ground appointment in favour of M.Sakthi Kumar in terms of Railway Board's letters No.E(NG)II/88/RC-1/Policy dated 04,09.1996, No.E(NG) \1/88/RC-1/1/77Pollcy dated 02.05.1997 Rallway Board's letter No.E (NG)-II/99/RC-1/SE-19 dated 05.08.1999 and RBE No.70/2014 dated 08.07.2014 and pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice. "
2, The'factual matrix of the case of the applicant is that the applicant is father of late M.MuthuKkumar who died In harness 'on 28.10.2014 ds a bachelor, while working as a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in the Southern Railway. Following the death of his son, the applicant, vide representation dated 05.12.2014 requested for compassionate appointment to his second son Shri M,Sakthikumar and the same was rejected by letter dated 10.02.2017.
2.1. The applicant submits that the Railway. Board's letter dated 04.09.1996 postulates consideration of cases of dependents of Railway employees dying as bachelors/spinsters on a case to case basis, subject to the condition that the proposal has the approval of the General Manager (GM) and that the candidate proposed for 3 OA No.582/2017 appointment is shown as dependent upon the late employee as per the ' Pass Rules.
2.2. The applicant further submits that the Railway Board's letter dated 02.05.1997 enunclates that the Railway should verify the genuineness of the claim of dependency for appointment of dependents of Rallway employees dying as bachelors/spInsters on the basis of documents, such as, Inclusion of the names of the family members in the pass (as dependents) or In ration cards etc,, and in the absence of any such documentary proof, the factual position regarding the extent of dependency may be verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to inquire into the circumstances. No such consideration was made.
7.3. The applicant contends that the respondents have failed to dwell upon the above Railway Board's letter dated 04.09.1996 & 02.05.1997 and RBE No.70/2012 dated 08.07.2014, made under Article 123 of the IREC and tssued in terms of Article 302 of the Constitution of India while rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment on extraneous grounds.
2.4, The applicant submits that Master Circular No.16 which Is a compendium on appointment on compassionate grounds issued under .
Railway Board's letter dated 12.12.1990, provides for compassionate ground appointments to the wards of Railway servants who lose their 4l Baia ke ies We zeke tae a a st aa fing S uf SOA Sree, repatacle Ainps Sar eae.
aa 1g '| hed a ts aia! vt atres Et tt pS al aod ty.
cpa a pe nN fe Haltech) ju 4 arty ea yeh MASSE Eno fn irtiites ae Tene es aed Medes rr v ¥ > ABE a.
a
- ae 4 q ne yee ee a Seaig ey Wr ER indent ain" spent [ae err a ete 4 OA No.582/2017 lives In the course of duty or die in harness otherwise while in service 'or are medically Incapacitated/decategorized. The Impugned non-
consideration of the requisition by the applicant for compassionate 'ground appointment Is Inconsistent with Railway Board letter dated 12.12.1990.
2,5. The applicant submits that Para V(a) (ii) of the Master Circular 46 stipulates for the relaxation of the perlod of five years normally fixed for making compassionate ground ' appointments and the impugned non-consideration of the applicant for compassionate ground appointment is unsustainable in law. | 2.6. The applicant further submits that the the impugned non- consideration of the applicant for compassionate ground appointment js-in-gross_violation of Rallway Board's jetter dated 07.04.1983 which stipulates that when offering appointment on compassionate grounds to a widow, son, daughter, etc. it need not be checked whether another son, daughter is already working; but in no case should there be more than one appointment against one death/medical incapacitation and in so far as the circular quoted (supra) guarantees a minimum of one appointment on the death of a railway employee in harness.
2.7. Further, the. disagreement by the respondents in offering compassionate appointment to the applicant on the pretext that the oe 5 OA No.582/2017 applicant was already drawing Income through some sources Is (logical since such provisos were not enshrined In the Master Circular No.16
- and Importing a new clause for the purpose of declining the request of the applicant for a compassionate appointment tantamount to denlal of a decent and dignified living and hence Is In gross violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3, The respondents have filed a reply statement wherein It Is stated that In the family composition declared by the deceased employee Late M.Muthukumar (Annexure R-1), he has not declared any one as dependent including M.Sakthikumar:for whom the-applicant has sought for compassionate appointment, 3.1. The respondents submit that as per the legal heir certificate dated 24.11.2014 issued by Tahsildhar, Tenkasi, the parents of the late employee, Shri Murugaiah(the applicant) and Smt Kanammal are the . legal heirs of Late Muthukumar. | 3.2. The ex-employee was appointed after 01.01.2004, he was covered under (Defined contributory Pension scheme) New Pension Scheme. Consequent on the death of the empjoyee, In order to settle accounts, 3% respondent by letter dated 07.07.2016 advised, the applicant, as legal heir, as certified by competent revenue authority, to exercise option either to receive family pension by transferring the accumulated pension wealth to the Railways or withdraw the.
ata At 7 ei 5 : 9 it is ro i rs cs i lieanante.
ley alee 7a Fetes fi A ee ates Pad pean, » > ik abi vt .qer od en hiss ait a eek ns TA a 2 ret hen aioe a Gifts veetae he RAT pe tons nize. a earren vy 24 ER renateatee eae ie + Waren syeagy Cree are rere rer ee a me 6 OA No.582/2017 accumulated pension wealth as per the prescribed rules of Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA). The applicant exercised option dated 28.07.2016 to grant of one time settlement under National Pension System, and an amount of Rs.1,77,785 was disbursed in equal shares to the applicant and his spouse, being legal heirs.- 4 3.3. The respondents submit that the Railway Board's letter dated 08.07.2014 stipulates the following conditions for considering appointment on compassionate grounds of a family member of an ex- 'Railway servant:
"(i)Spouse/son/daughter/brother/sister in the case of unmarried
---« Government servant, is to be wholly dependent on the Government 'servant at the time of death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be, .
(ii/The concerned' child will be the bread-winner of the family concerned. ;
{iii)In the absence of any such documentary proof such as ration card, the factual position regarding the extent of the dependency may be got verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to inquire into the ' circumstances."
3.4, In terms of the above, enquiries by Staff and Welfare Inspector and by Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) were conducted to ascertain the dependency factor and economic/financial conditions of the ex- employee's family. As on the date of the death of the deceased employee on 28.10.2014, two of the applicant's sons (including Shri Sakthikumar) had completed BE in 2013 & 2015 (respectively) and the 7 OA No.582/2017 third son completed BE degree course In 2016-2017. One of the elder sons, [e@., Shri Krishnaswamy was already working and earning an Income. The applicant owns 5 cent land with house comprising 4 rooms and Its approximate market value Is Rs.10 Lakhs. As per the option exercised by the applicant, the accumulated pension wealth amount of Rs.1,77,785 was disbursed to the applicant. Based on the material evidence and interaction with nelghbours, the dependency of Shri M.Sakthikumar has not been established. Accordingly, the representation of the applicant dated 07.11.2016 was examined in detail and disposed by the Impugned letter dated 10.02.2017.
3.5. The respondehts submits that as per the Railway Board's fetter dated 04,09,1996 dependents of Railway employees dying as bachelors/spinsters for appointment on compassionate ground will be considered subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown. as dependent on the ex-employee as per the Pass rules. But as per declaration given by the deceased employee, he has not Included any one as dependent on him. Further, the parents of the candidate for whom compassionate appointment is sought are alive during the life time of the deceased employee. The question of dependency of Railway employee's brother/sister will come only when father ig not alive. Hence, Shri 'Sakthikumar was always dependent on his parents and never-dependent on the deceased employee.
----------===--
Al 8 OA No,582/2017 3.6, The respondents submit that the whole object of the compassionate ground appointment scheme is to enable the family to .tide over the financial crisis due to the death of the employee If he was the sole bread winner of the family and has kept his famlly In penury and without any means of iIvellhood. The grant of compassionate appointment depends on various factors.such as size of the famlly, number of minor children In the family, number of minor sisters and O brothers to be brought up and the financla! condition of the family.
E 3.7. The respondents further submit that as per Railway Board Master : Circular No.16, Para V, where the spouse cannot take up employment, r. A Railways can keep the case for appointment on compassionate grounds 'open to enable consideration of appointment of -a minor son # when he attains majority.' This will be subject to the condition that the ' minor son to be considered for appointment and will be attaining : majority of age within a period of five years of the event of death, O \ 2 which is the basis for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the El present case, M.Sakthikumar was never dependent on the decéased BP employee during his life time. Hence, he is not eligible to be LE considered for compassionate appointment. There were no minor = brothers and sisters to be brought up and all are educated and 3 employable.adult members in the family.
9 OA No.582/20173.8. The object of the scheme of the compassionate appointment is
- to give appointment to a dependent or to a famlly member of the deceased employee. It cannot be granted as a matter of course on mere death In harness of an employee. The whole object of the scheme being to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis it faces on the death of the employee if he was the sole bread-winner of Othe family and his family Is in penury and without any means of livelihood, a local enquiry by Staff and Welfare Inspector and by an Assistant Personne! officer was conducted to ascertain the dependency"
factor and financial conditions of the ex-employee's family. It was revealed that the applicant's son was not wholly dependent on the -
ex.Railway servant at the time of death. Based on the material evidence, the dependency of the applicant's son on the ex-employee has not been established.
3.9, The respondents, in support of their contentions, rely upon the © judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 310 and S.Mohan Vs. Government of T.N., (1998) 9 SCC 485. They further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that it must be remembered that as _against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families, which are equally, if not more destitute. Therefore, in the
5) "i EP Petree a eA be ate sicher ae a a Sa a fy a Te saab rtm ee pote Lied Wop bare 10 OA No.582/2017 absence of the dependency, the applicant's son Is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. |
4. Norejolnder has been filed,
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides, considered the rival contentlons and perused the materlal available on record, Including original records filed on the direction of the Tribunal,
6. The son of the applicant, ie., the deceased employee was appointed on 01.12.2011 with Rallways and died on 28.10.2014. He died unmarried. In the declaration on "family composition" submitted by him to Railways, he has mentioned only his name. In the record of free passes also, during the three years or so of his service, no name of his parents or siblings is mentioned.
7. In this connection, the applicant's contention (as stated in his representation) is that they were not eligible as pér Pass Rules as 'dependent' but were, in fact, dependent .on the deceased employee, being only bread winner and were living together prior to the employee's death, as per the report of the Tahsildar, Tenkasi. Hence, rejection of applicant on the ground of non-mention of dependency under Pass Rules has nothing to do with 'factual' dependency. In the view of Tribunal, this contention is not sufficient to establish dependency of Shri Sakthikumar on the deceased employee.11 OA No.582/2017
8. That the applicant was misled at the tlme of joining to write In the 'Pass' declaration form only his name (as was done by all others who joined service along with him and after him) since father was alive cannot advance his contentions, That he did not know that he should declare familly composition, also is not acceptable since ignorance of law is no excuse. It was mandatory to declare family composition each year, as per Rules. In the 3 years of service, the ex-employee never rectified the records In this respect. Hence there is force In the respondents' contention that without establishing dependency of Shri Sakthikumar on the deceased employee, no case for claiming compassionate appointment lies.
9. Pass rules being only a facilitating factor and not the only factor as per the 2014 circular, local inquiry was done twice and the economic status of the family has been established. The report shows that the applicant was working as Coolie and was earning Rs.200 per day. One of the three brothers was working and was earning an income of Rs.7000 after qualifying for BE degree at the time of death of the late _ Shri Muthukumar. At the time of inquiry, he was a trainee in a private concern having switched jobs. Similarly, the other two sons, including Shri Sakthikumar had completed their BE degree course in 2015 &-
2017 after availing scholarship and bank loans. AI! the three brothers had attained majority at the time of death of the employee. Shri f '| Ri ie rata eal Baten es ; feces eoyte Bear Wrath trecisnteeear nar Ra CEOS cai aa Td isc ates ee dey ted yl NTs ay Ra ee Sete fe a ee ay tren kp ran Set Morte Y ohn wht MAY TS rs a lA, Seas Lt TEM aa erica ts er CREE ENS AFI AY Salone Popa ds faethe vas, o:
PR ARR EEE a ibe a Hos hunes ie patiees: pa ees 4 12 OA No.582/2017 Muthukumar was supporting the family with Rs.10,000 per month. The local Inquiry, however, did not establish dependency of -- Shri Sakthikumar as belng solely dependent on late Shri Muthukumar The respondents have also pointed out that his dependency, If any, was on the applicant, being father and being allve, '
10. In this connection, the local reports show that the father was recelving financial assistance from the deceased employee to supplement his own income_to run the family. As per the report, father's. dependency on Late Shri Muthukumar for making some financia!.contribution stands established. But such contributions were also coming from another son Shri.Krishnaswamy. Still Shri Sakthikumar, like his :other siblings can be legally termed as "dependents" 'on the father, being alive, during the life time of the deceased employee. Such dependence continued after the death of © . late Shri Muthukumar, Shri Sakthikumar cannot be stated to be directly and solely/wholly dependent on the deceased employee. Just because late Shri Muthukumar was contributing financial assistance to the home and supplementing the family income viz., income of father and Shri Krishnaswamy, It does not mean that Shri Sakthikumar was | solely/wholly dependent on the late -Shri Muthukumar to claim compassionate appointment, although the other two brothers have 13 OA No.582/2017 given NOC for Shri Sakthtkumar's claim for compassionate appointment.
11. The respondents have also submitted that applicant was advised to exercise option to recelve family pension by transferring the accumulated pension wealth to Rallways or withdraw as. per the prescribed rules of Pension Fund 'Regulatory and Development Authority(PFRDA). He opted for the latter on 28.07.2016 and was granted one time full and final settlement. The amount of Rs.1,77,785 was disbursed in equal shares to the applicant and his spouse. This was done on the basis of legal heirship certificate of competent authority dated 24.11.2014 given by the competent revenue authority.
There was no case for grant of family pension. Accordingly, there Is also force in respondents' contention that the parents of late Shri Muthukumar (deceased employee) are the only legal. heirs and Shri _ Sakthikumar, being solely/wholly dependent on his parents cannot, therefore, be stated to be solely/wholly dependent on the deceased employee.
12. The applicant has relied on Para v(a){ti) of the Master Circular 16 regarding relaxation of the period of 5 years normally fixed for making compassionate appointment claim. However, respondents have rightly pointed out that the said Para is simply not relevant in the applicant's or lea rar (a he anneal A Iv 5 2 < a SOAS i é tf ite BS ie te F hs: Lt a ay eee hth Sad F rs i 2 Es baestitret cant Ct ose elie eA rt en } pore alan Rites ERS ey arp oe ag eT an aaa ae eh stents eaente ht pes ei aaa itd 14 : OA No.582/2017 case since Shri Sakthikumar Is nelther son of the deceased nor dependent of the deceased employee during his life time.
ii. It is settled law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as a matter of course. Mere death of an employee does not entitle a family for grant of one compassionate appointment, to one death. The field Inquiry*has not revealed that the . family will not be able to tide over the crisis caused by the death of the ex-employee, which left the family in complete penury. Nor is it established that Shri Sakthikumar was solely/wholly dependent on late Shri Muthukumar. Hence, Shri Sakthikumar is clearly not eligible for being considered for compassionate appointment. Hence, no case wootcorer Ee or having been made out to interfere with the impugned order, OA is liable to be dismissed as lacking in merits, based on facts, rules and law position, including the citations rightly. relied upon by the respondents in the OA.
42. Accordingly, OA'is dismissed. No costs.
tia a oon eallhadieataniiaieemee ee eae ty ee ARSE OI ar Op ene ine Re a gg ee