Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Smt Chinta Debi vs Eastern Railway on 20 November, 2019
1 ■it,* ,y a* wu gtw»' *.V A JftSSEB®I-^lgS^mn«OSS»i [f] af* - r?'?-
* /
■s/
r © '/\ ■ 3 *P>((> I °l Jl-01 L(
;
f.y. M'A-3ST)/^ol/^>V
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH OA No- 350/00/ /2014 l.Smt.Chfnta Debi (Age £■> yrs.) . I Wife of Late Jaynandan Ram ! Ex- Bearer Railway Catering , Durgapur, E.RIy ! i Residing atLaxmipur Math, Po.&Dist Burdwan, Pin-
l:
i! 2. Sri RameshMondal r Son of Late Jaynandan Ram i i. Ex Bearer, Rly Catering, Durgapur/E. RIy < Residing at Laxmipur Math, Po. &Dt. Burdwan-
!
: Applicants
I
- Versus -
*
i
1. Union of India
f
Service through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17 ;N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700001
2. The Chief Commercial Manager ■ Eastern Railway, 3 K.G. Street, Kolkata - 700001
3. The Divisional Railway Managerf, t fv.
Eastern Railway, Howrah - 712101 ■
4. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager i i Eastern Railway, Asansol , Pin -
:3
Respondants
I
f
I ___ jtlijassp'tfi
ti
■MB
■■ '
I • -• -:-r
t-
mmm
Ci.-'. _w--..
'-*k
•*v
;
1
.f
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA No.O A.350/619/2014 M. A. 350/401/2015 Date of order: ^D«//- , Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member l.SMT. CHINTA DEBI
2. SRI RAMESH MONDAL V% v 5" i v vs. -fr- v*.
Jv \ utfSfeoifiNpb^igTHERS v \ -i- t r / / jBk \t .•a ar I it: lv.
■v f
w .
■-s.lv.
% .
For the applicant Mr, Av;Ghakraborty,.counseI s','-'*
..
'smm -- ....
S J:
•«
For the respondents'^. ; -Mrf A^K^ufe, couris^l"
^*
u.
#
/ i; | '
/ i
I \
if
•?
a-
ri%p|
% . "-n.
•?. \ /
' /" -Kfc.
:% -v \
#
/ % \ y /
Bidisha Bane^jee/Judicial/Member V^- v\ ff} /
#
/
/■
'rv.
/ .-•••■ \ ./
/
This application has been filed by the-widow and* son of Late ,*••■ j* / ■ Jaynandan Ram, e^earefr^ailj/yay^CaJe/jngr^tirg^Cr, Eastern Railway
-!• .. ........
.'/j# seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) To pass order and or direction upon the respondent authorities as General Manager/E. Rly./Kolkata to consider the case of compassionate appointment of the applicant No.2 die in harness ground of the employee as Rly. Catering, Durgapore as per R.B's letter of instructions and guidelines dt.01.8.2000 and 18.1.2008 within a time framed;
b) To pass such other further order/or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper;
c) Leave may kindly be granted to file this case jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CATs Procedure Rule 1987 "2
T
2. Ld. counsels were heard and materials on record were perused.
r
3. The admitted facts that emanated from the pleadings are thus:-
Late Jaynandan Ram passed away on 10.10.1998 while in harness. The widow, namely, Chinta Devi preferred an application dated 23.04.99 for employment assistance on compassionate ground in ;
favour of her 3rd son, Ramesh Mondal, the applicant No.2 herein which was. forwarded by the Station Manager, Eastern Railway, Durgapur on 23.04.1999 fbr^c©n|iderati^h.-.As per Board's letter dated '1; Q \
04.03.1999 commuted by Chi|||eponnel E^Mern Railway, Calcutta's «%tter date^ Ss.d|.3p^9,/th^^minimu^m ^ educational A \ \ / ,sr' .'■4' 4 •Vi :! quaUficatigrTfor c#si^ratiBinmMpifftmeii on c^a^ionate c m ' ' 1 I .
ground irTGroup '[^catejp^y^^||gd^a4,dassyill passed! Further I ...
"lx :«t-5 ^^yiifcli^by^ef Perso|^l (Ificer, Board's Jet|er dated •; V / / / ; I \ .y Eastern Railway, ^kutta'f l||t^g^|l^.200(^rovided thlt cases I under scrutiny of .brocesS'Tor compassionat^appoljiitirieht iniSroup 'D' •' / • .-|T . \ S/ / " ■ H " / jf category befo/e issuance of Board's letter dated 04*63.1099 should be \ v', / exempted from pdss.essing^t'he..„mini.m.um^ducat-rdnal qualification of ■ 's >;- • Class VIII passed. Since the applicant No.2 Ramesh Mondal was illiterate at the material time and the application was made after issuance of Board's letter dated 04.03.1999, the prayer for employment assistance was found as not coming under the purview of rules relating to compassionate appointment due to lack of requisite educational qualification of Class VIII passed. Being aggrieved the applicants preferred O.A.No.410/2001 which was disposed of with a direction 3 w&-
;
upon the General Manager, Eastern Railway to consider the matter in ; the light of the instruction at para 3 of Board's letter dated 04.03.1999.
A speaking order was issued by the General Manager communicated vide letter dated 13.03.2002 where the General Manager opined that minimum educational qualification of Class VIII passed would apply In case of compassionate appointments and exemption would be available only for widows appointed against certain specified posts and;
therefore, the son of the deceased (the applicant No.2 herein) was not V-- „ !; .J i considered suitablejtar^exemption. V % W" \ l
4. The respdndent^i^ve^aled|thpt the enfplbye| expired before 04.0:3.1999 4he %ter 04J9iT19'k.9 was considered^s "not and, tf&efo|e, not '.,r' f eltAtwy ^ W" s* --i t.3ti ewtitfed-tb^exemptio^li^ter-RTiSci'bfS'o-ar^sMetfer^ted 01.08-12000^ The vC' . • 5 :• \ H **&F f V educational qualification dfeltandaiid \^IIL^#s required to be possessed for compassionate* appointment and although^tije^Ge|ieralJyianager % v-'V/ ^ -A',y / ^ .. x'-./ A ■ was empowered-, to consider relaxation of minimum- educational A Jfg?
/» *S' qualification, it was^ a drscretionary jpwer to be^ihvoked only when considered absolutely necessary. The respondents have further stated that the family was paid all settlement dues and the widow was paid family pension, her two elder sons are employed and they should support the family. The applicants once again challenged the speaking order before this Tribunal in O.A. No.980/2002 which was dismissed for default on 28.09.2005. No application for restoration could be gathered from the records.
4•v*' i • -/ --
5. According to the respondents, the Railway Board's letter dated 28.02.1995 issued in the wake of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment emphasizes that "only ground which can justify compassionate ground employment is the penurious condition of the deceased family. Compassionate employment connof be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. Compassionate ground appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised any time in the future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered f , ■'V;
V T
whatever the lapse oparrie and after the crisis is over." u ^ ■it.
v*'
-f-. *V,.
i. <5 «
The r.espdndentsjhlv^avferrfedlthaf fter a lapse^f ftiore than ^ £::\ \ \\ I / / ^ eight yearsHrom tl^ ^isibn\fel-^A^o#9,§b/^D02>thi%^J>pl,ication# ^ 'St
- Vr ,.r -•fl M ft** H **n2>the it ''■.At'1a./ ( hearing, Id. {mips^l/oifthelapplicante^would submit t\pt the
6. V-
e%A / f \ ^... /"
original application was applicant IMo.2
./ /■ v"1' j/ .s. \ §
acquired the required qualification in 2011-aUd, 4'feere#ore^it merited .. "■ ■ ' / ,/ consideration>.whilKon the other^hand, Id. counselor th% respondents 4 '.r would submit that the appiTca'tTon 'Was hopelesfly time barred and . .rt compassionate appointment was not a vested right which could be exercised any time in the future.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that the speaking order which mentions of two sons of the deceased who are employed, were not maintaining the widow and the applicant No.2.
They were living separately with their own family members and the 5 family pension of the widow was never sufficient to maintain herself ■L* and her unemployed 3rd son.
8. We considered the rival contentions. We would discern the following:-
0) The employee expired in the year 1998.
(ii) His widow approached the authorities for employment assistance in 2001. The General Manager had rejected the prayer in 2002.
(iii) In 2002, O.A.,No,§8'0 #f 2002 was preferred assailing the General Managers, S;r!eVS ° ^ F
(iv) Tte^-^o-98^P»lismissed # thaH,ribunal for default rrii:2005, no j^tdr-ation applilatjon was pr^grn^d by the applicant. The^1^014. \ ,(v) J ^The apllic^nt^l^llfcq^# Otess Vl'l$hf standard ' , qual®l'cation ||'f01*lH,^^S^tt£3«t-r&iau#ion of tB^circlilar of : 20.00? but piifefferii^^SiKrWIfe 2014.t»The|e are umpteen no'# 'df" declsl^ft^of'--. iHOTf''bt,ef Apex trSurtl that "Compassionate gnotiincl fa'ppbiptm^ni^is*'^ndf!tj^sted right Wrpich jkan be exhrcised any timei®0£ futiirel fihei,pbfect'b%ii0 to enable the*famiip to get ovifthe financial crCsfs^hichfit fpces ahth0iime of the death of She sole bread winner^jthe ^om^s^io^y^d^lbvmefii cainn^t be claimed and offered wifateven the>iapse of time and gftef tWe crisisJs ovef"[Umesh Kumar Ndgpdl Vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4)S@C 138]'\ ' ? / \ ' .A^ ' / /
(vi) ^Board's order, No:EtNe)11/g9/8Csa/SC/|^fat^lr01.08.2000 as contajnedNin Ahnexuite -A/ll Apecifies^ as #rfider(emphasis added for c'larityf:'- ,,, v..
•,*&**'■ ,1;. •a>*' "Sub : Appointment on compassionate grounds in Group 'D' posts- Minimum educational qualification.
Attention is invited to Board's letter No.E(NG)ll-/98/RC-l/139 dated 04.03.1999 laying down that the educational qualification of class Vlllth pass for appointment to Group 'D' will also apply to appointments on compassionate grounds. It had been further clarified vide Board's letter of even number dtd. 29.07.99, that candidates who have been approved for appointment on compassionate grounds prior to 4.3.99, could be exempted from possessing qualification of class Vlllth pass.
A demand has been tabled by the Staff Side in the JCM/DC(No.19/2000) seeking to exempt those persons, whose cases were under scrutiny or under process for compassionate appointment prior to 04.03.99 from possessing the minimum qualification of Eighth class.
l ;• ■;
. v.
6
' ' /
The matter has been considered by the Board and it has been decided that further to Board's Letter dated 29.7.99 the cases which were under f scrutiny or under process for compassionate appointment in Group V' before the issue of Board's letter of 04.03.99 should be exempted from possessing the minimum qualification of eighth pass."
(VII) The case of the applicant was indubitably not under consideration or scrutiny as on 04.03.1999.
(VIII) Since the widow had applied after 04.03.1999 she cannot seek an exemption due to the specific bar imposed by the Board's order dated 01.08.2000 as the matter was neither under scrutiny nor under process before issuance of Board's letter dated 04.03.1999.
:s
9. In the aforesaid baekdrbfo the^' clai^ fails^and the O.A. is : *cViS:
dismissed. Consequently the M,.A.?aJs^stands dismissed, ^o costs.
* X
k
:<
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) ..y!v
Administrative Meipber Judicial Mjembel
y-5-
--SV' It
sb ■s'*
; - % %
\ if, :: fiV //ftI \% X m*' i
i
/ ■ I 1
i| R'
y"
J? /
'■jJ;
\
%rS -
\ v/. ''-w'
** f 1
/■
•r *v~ ./
\ Vi-
'S /r
\*'
Jf
■v
i
!
:
I