Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Treasa Sebastian vs Union Of India on 19 November, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 948 of 2012
Tuesday, this the 19th day of November, 2013
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
Treasa Sebastian,
Thaivilakom House,
Valiaveli PO,
Unit No. 18,
Thiruvananthapuram. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. S. Narayanan Nair)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary,
Department of Space, Anthariksha Bhavan,
New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560 231.
2. Vikram Sarabahai Space Centre, ISRO PO,
Trivandrum-695 022, Represented by its Director.
3. Administrative Officer (Recruitment),
Vikram Sarabahai Space Centre, ISRO PO,
Trivandrum, 695 022. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 19.11.2013, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-
Late Vikram Sarabahai had reached a consensus with those persons whose land/properties were acquired for establishment of Vikram Sarabahai Space Centre (VSSC) to consider one person from one family limited to three generations for employment in VSSC subject to availability of post, suitability of the candidates as an additional avenue of compensation. The applicant had submitted as early as on 16.10.2009 an application to the 3rd respondent for appointment to the post of Safaiwala under evictee category. This was followed by another representation dated 16.4.2012 and yet another one dated 19.7.2012. Aggrieved by the rejection of her representation for employment on the ground of overage the applicant has filed this OA for the following reliefs:-
"i. Call for the records and direct the respondent to appoint the applicant in service of the respondent Organisation under the scheme for absorption under eviction status.
ii. Direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the A6 representation submitted in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
iii. Grant such other relief, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the nature of and circumstances of the case including the cost of this proceedings."
2. The applicant contended that she is entitled to the benefit of eviction status for suitable placement in the respondent organization on account of being a member of the family whose property was acquired for the respondents' organization. The respondents are offering appointment under the scheme even now and the applicant is discriminated vis-a-vis other similarly placed evictees. There is no member in the family who is employed. Therefore, it is very difficult to look after the aged and sick parents.
3. The respondents contended that there is no specific reservation for evicted persons, nor did Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) give any guarantee of employment to all evicted persons. ISRO had agreed only for preferential treatment to the evicted person like exemption from sponsorship by the employment exchange. The candidates have to otherwise meet all the requirements for the post for which they are considered including the maximum age limit. The consensus reached four decades ago when VSSC was an autonomous body is still being honoured. As per record submitted by the applicant her date of birth is 22.1.1980. She was 29 years of age at the time of raising her claim for appointment under eviction status. The qualification possessed by the applicant suits only for the post of erstwhile Group-D post. As she had already crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post i.e. 25 years with admissible relaxation of three years for OBC, she could not be considered for employment in VSSC and the applicant was given a reply accordingly vide letter dated 15.11.2011. Her application dated 19.7.2012 also was not considered as she had already crossed the age limit. All evicted families were given adequate and due compensation for the land/properties acquired from them for establishment of VSSC and consideration of one person from one family for employment subject to availability of post and suitability of candidates is an additional avenue extended to them. OA No. 589 of 2002 filed by an applicant was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that no appointment can be granted dispensing with suitability of the applicant to a post. This order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. On a few occasions the respondents' organization has given appointment to persons belonging to eviction category by relaxing the upper age limit when their applications were considered based on court verdicts, with the specific sanction of Secretary, Department of Space. However, the same cannot be treated as a general rule and is applicable solely to the particular case. Such appointments cannot be taken as precedence for other cases. So far VSSC has given employment to 292 persons under eviction category. The consensus reached almost four decades back was only a benevolent action as a social commitment through which many local people who were found suitable in the selection procedure have been given employment without compromising the recruitment norms and procedures. The same is being honoured by the respondents with full commitment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. As per the averment of the respondents all evicted families are given adequate and due compensation for the land and properties acquired from them for establishment/expansion of VSSC. If it were so there was no need to provide additional avenue of consideration of one person from one family limited to three generations for employment in VSSC subject to availability of post and suitability of the candidates, even as a social commitment. But the consensus reached between late Vikram Sarabhai and the evictees for such a benevolent action implies that the compensation that was given to them was not adequate and something more than the amount of compensation should be given to them who surrendered their land for a national cause. The overflowing compassion of the great Scientist towards the poor who subjected themselves to self deprivation appears to have not touched the respondents. Although the respondents claim that they are honouring the commitment given four decades ago of consideration for employment and that they have already given 292 appointments so far, in the instant case no stone is left unturned, for not giving due consideration to the applicant. The only reason stated by the respondents for rejecting her application for a low paid job for which only she is found suitable is that she is overaged as per the recruitment rules. Her suitability otherwise for a Group-D/C/MTS post is not disputed by the respondents. They have admitted that on a few occasions they have given appointment to overaged persons with evictee status whose cases were considered based on court verdicts with specific sanction of Secretary, Department of Space. The contention that the same cannot be treated as the general rule and is applicable to a particular case and cannot be taken as a precedence in the instant case begs question. The persons with evictee status is a diminishing lot. Only one person in three generations needs to be given consideration for job as per the consensus. In the instant case the applicant had to establish that she is the legal heir of Francisca Fernandez whose land was acquired as per Annexure A1 dated 18.8.2009 at the end of a civil suit. Soon after, she had applied for employment under the evicted category vide letter dated 16.10.2009. She was informed by Annexure R1 letter dated 15.11.2011 that she could not be considered for employment as she was overaged. The respondents failed to take note of the fact that unless and until the civil case was settled the applicant could not have made her claim under the evictee status. Thus the pending civil suit stood in the way of the applicant applying for a job under the respondents any time before she got overaged. Therefore, this is a fit case for the respondents to consider relaxation of age limit for providing her with a job for which she was found suitable under the respondents. The technicality of overage cannot override the moral obligation cast upon the respondents by the consensus reached by late Vikram Sarabhai with the evictees. It will be a disrespect to the memory of the great Scientist if the respondents hide behind technicality to deny a job to a deserving person with evictee status.
6. It took more than two years for the respondents to give a negative response to the request made by the applicant for a job under eviction category. This delay is deprecated. The right course of action for the respondents is to exhaust the additional avenue of compensation as early as possible by providing a suitable job to one member of the evictee family in three generations.
7. The suitability of the applicant for a low category job in their organization is admitted by the respondents. Hence, the reliance placed by them on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 589 of 2002 is misplaced.
8. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, in the facts and circumstances of the instant OA, the applicant should be considered for appointment in the service of the respondents organization under the scheme for absorption under the eviction status relaxing the age restriction. Hence, we direct the respondents to re-consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the applicant in accordance with the spirit of consensus reached between late Vikram Sarabhai and the evictees giving relaxation in age limit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"