Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
(By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj ... vs Uoi & Ors. Through on 12 March, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.2094 of 2009
New Delhi this the 12th day of March, 2010
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Chameli Devi,
W/o Late Shri Balwan Singh,
R/o Village Nasir Pur, P.O. Palam,
New Delhi-110045
(By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)
... Applicant
Versus
UOI & Ors. Through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Raksha Bhawan,
New Delhi.
The Chief Engineer,
Headquarter Chief Engineer,
Delhi Zone, Military Engineer Service,
Delhi Cantt.-110010
Engineer in Chief-in-Cs Branch,
Army Headquarters, Kashmir House,
P.O., New Delhi.
Chief Engineer,
Headquarters, Western Command,
Engineers Branch,
Chandimandir-07
Commander Works Engineer,
DelhiCantt.110 010
Garrison Engineer (South),
Delhi Cantt-110 010
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri S.M.Zulfiqar)
ORDER
This is a case of Compassionate appointment of the applicant whose husband serving as Mate (Elect) in the office of the respondents, died in harness on 9.12.2003 leaving behind two marriageable daughters and one minor son bedsides the applicant herself.
2. In April, 2005, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment and submitted an affidavit in support of her family details and the financial status for this purpose. The respondents, however, rejected the applicants case for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the applicants case does not deserve employment assistance as she did not have liability of marriageable daughters and their marriageable daughters were married. Feeling aggrieved the applicant filed OA No.537/2007 in this Tribunal alleging rejection of her request for compassionate appointment without application of mind. The said application was disposed of on 30.3.2007 with direction to respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground treating the OA also as her representation and keeping in view the various indigent and other personal circumstances, pass a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents vide their letter dated 11.03.2008 rejected the claim of the applicant due to non availability of sufficient vacancies within 5% quota even after giving fifth look to her case. The applicant made a representation in July,2008 wherein it was submitted that in the year 2005, when her claim was rejected on account of lower merit, more than five vacancies were available but the same were given to lesser meritorious candidates. Her case was most deserving as she had the liability of two unmarried daughters and one minor son without any movable and immovable properties. But the respondents appointed such candidates who were financially stronger than the applicant. On 04.08.2008, the respondents passed the impugned order closing the case of the applicant. It has been stated in the impugned order that in terms of Govt. of India O.M. dated 05.052003, the case of a candidate for offering compassionate appointment can be kept under consideration for a period of three years from the death of deceased employee. Hence, the applicant has filed the present application.
3. The matter can be disposed of on a short point on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal in OA-537/2007 dated 30.3.2007 and on consideration the respondents were unable to provide employment assistance on compassionate ground due to non-avilablity of sufficient vacancies towards 5% quota. The learned counsel for the applicant was asked to point out the legal infirmities, if any, in this order. The only argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant was that even if the vacancies are not available at present, these were available in 2005 when the applicants case was wrongly rejected and her case could be considered with regard to the available vacancies in the year 2005. I do not find any force in this contention in view of the impugned order which has been passed pursuant to directions of this Tribunal in OA-537/2007 dated 30.3.2007 which reads as follows:-
3. .the respondents would not be prejudiced if they are directed, particularly Respondent No.2, to consider the prayer of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds treating this application as his representation in that regard keeping in view the various indigent and other personal circumstances put forward by the applicant and pass orders thereon as per rules and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. Thus, there was no direction for review as is sought by the applicants counsel. Nor there was any reference to the period with reference to which the applicants case was required to be considered. All facts prior to March,2007, get merged in the order dated 30.3.2007. The action of the respondents thus does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
5. In these premises, the OA is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /usha/