Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Vishnu B vs The Assistant General Manager Bsnl ... on 19 October, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00487/2019
Thursday, this the 19th day of October, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Vishnu B., S/o. Babu G., Lekshmi Bhavan,
Aged 25 years, Cheruvallimukku, Chiraynkeezhu PO,
Chirayinkeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala,
Pin Code - 695 034, Phone - 8907626542. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. Ananthu B. & Mr. Arunkumar C.)
Versus
1. Assistant General Manager (R&E), O/o CGMT,
BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
2. Deputy General Manager (HR), O/o CGMT, BSNL,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kerala Circle,
O/o CGMT, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-
695033, represented by its Chief General Manager, O/o. CGMT,
BSNL, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-
695033. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. V. Santharam)
This Original Application having been heard on 06.10.2023, the
Tribunal on 19.10.2023 delivered the following:
2
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The father of the applicant herein was a Telephone Mechanic under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the respondents. While in service, on 22.3.2016 he died, leaving 6 years of service left. He was survived by his wife, two children and the aged mother. The applicant claimed that he had passed SSLC and sought appointment on compassionate grounds by submitting Annexure A-I application dated 20.3.2017, accompanied by the necessary documents. It was claimed that after the demise of the father of the applicant, the family was in utter penury and financial difficulties. They had to repay the loan taken for constructing a house. The only sister of the applicant was 75% disabled and deserted by her husband. She had to undergo treatment. The disability certificate submitted by the applicant was Annexure A-II. The request submitted by the applicant was rejected by the BSNL by Annexure A-III communication, intimating that the applicant got only 20 weightage points as assessed by High Power Committee constituted for considering the applications seeking compassionate appointment. It was held that hence, the applicant was not entitled for consideration of his application 3 towards compassionate appointment under the scheme formulated by the BSNL. A lawyer notice was issued, which was replied by the BSNL. A fresh representation was submitted which was also rejected by Annexure A-VII reply. Aggrieved by the above, the applicant has preferred this Original Application seeking a declaration that the applicant was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment by the BSNL.
2. The applicant contended that he was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. It was contended that the evaluation of the respondents of his financial backwardness was not proper. It was also contended that the revised guidelines laid down by the BSNL for the year 2016 was not considered. It was claimed that there was no proper evaluation of the indigency of the applicant. The Welfare Officer had not visited the house as claimed and special circumstances for consideration of the application were not considered. The cumulative assessment points were erroneous. The daughter of the deceased was a dependent, which was not taken into consideration, it was contended.
3. Admittedly, BSNL had formulated its guidelines and introduced a weightage point system by Annexure R1(b) order dated 27.6.2007. The 4 revised guidelines was produced as Annexure R1(j). According to the evaluation process, any candidate who obtained weightage point of 55% or more alone shall be prima facie treated as eligible for consideration by the High Power Committee constituted for selecting the candidates for compassionate appointment. According to the respondents on such evaluation, the applicant obtained only 20 points.
4. It is pertinent to note that the guidelines of the BSNL as evidenced from Annexure R1(b) and R1(j) are not under challenge. The records reveal that the committee had evaluated all the grounds set up by the applicant in accordance with the weightage system evolved by the BSNL. Hence, the contention of the applicant that there was no proper evaluation by the various facts cannot be accepted. The respondents have specific case that the Welfare Officer had visited the house of the applicant and have submitted the report. The report is available on record as Annexure R1(i). The contention of the applicant was that the Welfare Officer had not visited the house. It seems that by Annexure A-V reply applicant was informed that the Welfare Officer had submitted a report which did not establish the indigency of the applicant. In Annexure A6 reply there is no specific averment that the evaluation by the Welfare Officer was not 5 correct. Considering the entire facts I am not inclined to accept the contention of the applicant that the Welfare Officer did not visit the house. The materials available on record establish that the Welfare Officer had visited the house.
5. At the time of hearing, two specific contentions were vehemently marshalled by the learned counsel for the applicant. The first contention was that the sister of the applicant was a handicapped person, that she was separated from her husband and that factor was not taken into consideration by the evaluation committee. The next contention was that the applicant and his family did not own a house of their own. Even the house in which they were residing belong to the entire family of the deceased and not independently owned by them, it was contended.
6. Regarding the contention that the sister of the applicant was not considered as a dependent, the applicant relied on the details furnished in Annexure A-I application and the disability certificate produced as Annexure A-II. It is true that Annexure A-II shows that the sister was suffering from 75% disability. As per Annexure R1(b) weightage point system, 5 points are allotted to an unmarried daughter (after 15 years). 6 Though the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the sister of the applicant was separated from her husband, there is apparently nothing on record to establish this. On the other hand it is an admitted fact that as on the date of application, which was the crucial date, she was married. 5 points could be awarded, only for unmarried daughter. Hence that contention cannot survive.
7. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that neither the applicant nor his father, own any house. He has a specific case that the property stood in the name of the family of the deceased. However, the Welfare Officer's report conclude that they were living in a house of their own. The applicant has no case that he was residing in a rental house with family. On the other hand there are references in the reply statement as well as in the additional reply statement that the land stood in the name of the father of the applicant and that he had availed a loan for constructing the house. This is specifically seen reiterated in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder. Even in the Original Application it was specifically mentioned that after the death of the father, the family was in difficult financial crises and found it difficult to discharge the liability of the housing loan. It clearly indicates that they 7 were residing in a house of their own or at least that they were not living in a rented house. Item No. 6 of the weightage point system of Annexure R1(b) clearly indicates that 10 points are allotted to a family living in a rented house and not owning a house. In other words 10 points will be allotted only if they are residing in a rented building. The applicant has no case that he was living in a rented house. Nil point was allotted to the family living in their own house. Hence, the above contention of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
8. On an evaluation of the entire facts, none of the above contentions would survive. It is seen from the reply statement filed by the respondents that on an evaluation of the claim set up by the applicant, dependent was granted 10 points, based on basic family pension (pre-revised) 4 points were allotted, towards left out service 6 points were awarded, thereby total points allotted to the applicant was only 20 whereas the bench mark was 55 points. Even assuming that both the contentions of the applicant are accepted, still that will constitute only 5 points towards the unmarried daughter and 10 points for the house. Thereby the maximum points can only be 35 which is still short of 55.
8
9. These facts lead to the clear conclusion that respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment. I find no legal or factual grounds to interfere in the conclusion arrived at by the BSNL. The Original Application fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"
9
Original Application No. 180/00487/2019 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-I - Photo copy of application dated 20.3.2017. Annexure A-II - Photo copy of disability certificate dated 14.7.2016. Annexure A-III - Photo copy of communication dated 14.6.2018. Annexure A-IV - Photo copy of lawyer notice dated 28.7.2018. Annexure A-V - Photo copy of communication dated 21.9.2018. Annexure A-VI - Photo copy of letter dated 26.2.2019. Annexure A-VII- Photo copy of communication dated 9.5.2019. Annexure A-VIII -Photo copy of pay slip dated 30.11.2015. Annexure A-IX -True copy of the Aadhar card of RESMI. J issued by Government of India.
Annexure A-X - True copy of the Aadhar card of Adith. B issued by Government of India.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the letter No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D)-dated 9th October, 1998.
Annexure R1(b)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2005-Pers.IV dated 27.06.2007.
Annexure R1(c)- True copy of the letter No. 268-79/2002-Pers.IV dated 27.12.2006.
Annexure R1(d)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2013-Estt-IV dated 10 21.4.2016.
Annexure R1(e)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2013-Estt-IV dated 2.6.2016.
Annexure R1(f)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2013/CGA/P-IV dated 1.10.2014.
Annexure R1(g)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2013/CGA/Estt-IV dated 31.3.2017.
Annexure R1(h)- True copy of the order No. 273-18/2013/CGA/Estt-IV dated 9.4.2019.
Annexure R1(i)- True copy of the report dated 20.3.2017 submitted by the Welfare Officer.
Annexure R1(j)- True copy of the Annexure R1(d) including Annexure I-A and Annexure I-B attached to Annexure R1(d).
Annexure R1(k)- True copy of the communication No. 273- 18/2013/CGA/Estt-IV dated 7.8.2018.
Annexure R1(l)- True copy of the communication No. BSNL Co-
A/15(27)/1/2022-ESTAB dated 7.3.2022 issued by the respondents.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-