Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dulali Khatun vs Central Water Commission on 20 November, 2019
*
1 O.A. 726.2014
.■ >s
y
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
LIBRARY V
r
No. O.A. 726 of 2014 Reserved on: 20.9.2019
Date of order:
Present HonTole Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
HonTole Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
(Dulati Khatun & anr. v. Union of India & ors.)
For the Applicant Mr. S. Biswas, Counsel
For the Respondents ; :• 1 SKjGhosft^GQunsel
f*
ORDER
% m * atteri AdmiMstraLiVeMembe ■ar i.Rll2a Flj 'i- % ^ffie ^^iacaiit ^^fi^roS|H^d||H v ibims ider Admiliistiaiwe TribmiaJ^^^^^ F 1 Mowing -% "j-
■mt
$■
To direct mm in '|ivour
IfW p'"ctei«s!
1 As|fIp1 on ^^^fc^s,c<srK
I Armeimre A/12; C %»,. M
1 *
1 (iif jLeave may bfi^c^tetrfo Juetf i|jo% under Rul m CAT s l Wi (rf^dure) Rules, I^SB^JF : m 1 To pas^ucKoSfer m. cfefe&tj^SPfe;oper:" 5f
2. d to 'ta^msel, examined p^^Sngs Aftocuments on m resfeondents^iave'^fee^^^^ii^Siia^ record. Th%i ersjifi O.A. No. ¥ 1142 of SOl^iiateS^k^&iSnfe % of fpa Ganguly v. Union % F % ..
of India <& others in%upport.
3. As prayed lor by the applicants, leave to jointly pursue this O.A. is granted under Rule 4(5) (a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on grounds of commonality of interest and common cause of action.
4. The submissions of the applicant, as made through Ld. Counsel is, that the applicant's father worked as a Boatman under respondent No. 4, who died in harness on 28.2.2005, leaving behind his wife and three 2 O.A. 726.2014 daughters. The applicant is one of, the,, daughters of the ex-employee, and, after his demise, she applied for employment on compassionate grounds immediately thereafter.
The respondent authorities had placed her application in the screening committee meeting held on 6.11.20-12 and the committee did recommend appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. Despite the said decision, the applicant was not favoured with any appointment letter and thereafter the applicant preferred another * i 'V:
application on 26.12.2,01^ |^hi|Dh^sl,^et^^ g6eie de%i^.d upon' by the respondent authqraWefe.' . ^ \ According the ap^^h|wy^edly &st in^lr of merit in the screening list ^atei..6.%l&OjlA Respite"^he samef^noAng her 4* % claimi, the, candidajfe^mpafaeli^klfe^giiild^g «rder ofTrSeri was mr appjta^d m j?5 her ^,of'nt 0pp|rtu4«.3, n* I ,t * -ft i§L f i f' 4 % I
5. i,T|ejpespondents%^e |eTuted| tftg |lai^|;f the applicant^thfiugh \ / I \ their Written statetfeft%,d5t^rfl^J^Mli^cd<'-jf5yfher supplen^ntary 1 % affidavit as filied^^m 1^12.^019 in-response ^p% the ^ibunal.
X"- " / /
In their Supplementary affidavit,the -^spondeiits have clarified as
... ' J J
/
,r ■
follows:- ;t->
's
>t i B?
%%
(a) The candidate; who was^reportediytfiaumbgi^two in the- merit list,
was appointed as per TribunffsClf^^d 1.8.2011.
(b) That against the criterion of family pension, both the empanelled candidates, No. 1 and 2 in merit, obtained 18 points having received similar amounts in family pension.
(c) In respect of terminal benefits, the applicant was granted terminal benefits within the Parameter-IV, and hence was allotted 7 marks. The 3 OA 726.2014 i/ candidate No. 2 in merit, being entitled to terminal benefits within the r Col. No. I, was eligible to receive 10 points.
(d) In respect of monthly income, with the applicant as well as the other candidate were initially allotted 5 marks. The applicant, however, was engaged by the Damodar Division, Central Water Commission, Asansol and received @ Rs. 11,400.00 per month a fact which was not brought on record before the Screening Committee held on 6.11.2012. Subsequently, Review Screening Committee,, held on 28.12.2012 jBj considered and aMbtted^4finlSfe S W I® a-. ' t^hfe. gpffljaltj^fter^onsidermg such ,Y/ monthly income.
(e) %iem had
m
&
declared •ee^ibnsidere allotted
a
n^nr%i:d declarpdp through
i
^ginor
^'a|s ^s^c^p^'in the fami^n| was accordingly allott^TSl^ p^meeting hpld on 6.11.201 fc^^otBi the.^eported minors ;vie' Screening Committee hifel or^8,. 12 fand^llotted 0 (zero) P5 marks to the applic^4. Acc^ftf^glyf-s^re^^licanrfhtained 71 marks in the Review Screening Committ^^^^elmgr The other candidate, initially placed at No. 2 on merit in the Committee meeting dated 6.11.2012, scored 87 marks in the review meeting.
5. The issue to be decided for adjudication in the instant matter is whether the applicant deserves appointment on compassionate grounds.
4 OA 726.2014 6.1. At the outset, the orders of the Tribunal dated 1.8.2011 in O.A, No. 1142 of 2010 referred to by the respondent authorities is examined. The Tribunal, having relied on BOP&T O.M. dated 5.5.2003, its interpretation by Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 386 of 2007 (Nawaz Mughal v. Union of India ors.) as well as the Honhle Allahabad High Court judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102/2010 (UOI -vs.' Smt. Asha Mishra & anr.)} directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of the order, particularly, on the ground that automatic closure after three years of the demise of the deceased employee cannot be sustained.
6.2. The respondents have placed before us the decision of the screening committee dated 6.11.2012 wherein-Annexure SA-3 reveals that the applicant in the present O.A. had received highest marks of 83 and had topped the said list, whereas the applicant in O.A. No. 1142 of 2010 had received 82 marks and was placed as No. 2 on merit.
On account of certain anomalies detected subsequently, such as income earned by the applicant from the Damodar Division of the respondent authorities during a certain period and receipt of terminal benefits, the applicant's score was modified. Most importantly, when the applicant had applied in 2005, she had disclosed that there were two minor children in the family. The Screening Committee had taken up her prayer upon availability of vacancies. By that time, the minors had attained majority and, consequently, the applicant was no longer entitled to receive any positive score on ground of minor children. Consequently, in the screening committee meeting held on 28.12.2012, the applicant in O.A. No. 1142 of 2010, having obtained the highest score, was appointed by the respondent authorities.
5 O.A. 726.2014 6.3. There is no dispute on the~issue-;, that, even after revision of the scores, the applicant holds the highest score among the remaining candidates after the appointment of the applicant in O.A. No. 1142 of 2010. The respondents would argue that the applicant could not be offered appointment in the absence of vacancies. 6.4. Judicial pronouncements are categorical to rescue families subjected to deep and abject penury on account of the loss of bread winner of the family.
#-
4In Haryana State Ei^ckricity k<kzr^Vi0Iakim^ Singh (1997) 8 <%h ■ * ' i /# , *\ SCC 85 the Hon^ie 'Supreme Court explained the^fation&e of the rule relating to co%:il„a9#|^i|S|&fe5..rd3? ^
-ffe rule of^ppo%rtol^titq| p|:bli^ se^c^s that thef^^shpuld be on hieritf:®id througtfbppn ihvit^tiin| if i# th€'no|mmfoute through wfech one ■Scan get into a public empl©y^fttMjwej4;^a#fevei^ule can ha^e|exceptions, ? therl^e a few been Evolved t| meet fce^ \s pr^ted k ?ie bereaved family^of a deceas^J^Lemplbyeg. fey acc|mmodating#€rie of his ' dependants in a'||aGai^y^^#|i6^^sfti^ye%ucepSto the famidy^jvhicfi has % j be^|i yuddenly ypmeiy deatelf itl sole | bre%a4vdnner. Thi^p^irt iJ?asf'o^sir^eS^&ae -and^'gain that |he^ obj.Jct of | piovrding such ame&ratMg ^4ie|::sl|feu|d lot Ife^talceh as opening (M%ltei|iative |mb4e^f recruitment1i^ab]^er|pl(4mient.'| **&#*& | In Sushma^iSosotintfiukionHoim^iaA^^/el^) SLR 32WI +' "v... .-vo. ,i' the / V1 / ;• ' '-i -'-jj .y-' • Honhle> Supreme.^Courit /"pointed out that^the" pti^^s^ of providing ■ V "V,. f appointment ori^comf>assionate^gr;.oun;d«':jri:s to. mitigate 4me Iwdship due \., bt '*> ^ -A ■ i ■■. ^ r\i. i'". 5" ' * Ji rt.-■■ifr to death of thbt bre^dearnef iif TOeifamlly and that such appointment ir-i should, therefore, be^ ,provid^^ihM^dilffely tq^r#Heem the family in distress.
In Umesh Kr. Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (2) SLR 677 the principles relating to compassionate appointment emphasized as under:
".......One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gain employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises."
6 0 A 726.2014 6.5. The fact remains that the applicant applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the demise of her father. It is also on record that she did have established eligibility to receive such appointment on the basis of the score sheet as recommended by the screening committee. Respondents also do not dispute that the family is in a penurious situation. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authorities to consider the appointment^ . of the applicant on compassionate grdunds^uife)i|flfciu
7. With these i-' directions, T5B.
the O.A. is _________