Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Subhadra vs South Central Railway on 5 April, 2024
OA/613/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA No.613/2022
HYDERABAD, this the 5th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
1. K.Subhadra, W/oLate Rajeeru(Ex-Senior Gangman),
Bapatla, Gr-C, Occ: House Wife, aged about 65 years,
R/o. D.No.12-315, Islampura, Mancherial,
Adilabad District, Telangana.
2. K.Mahender, S/oLate Rajeeru(Ex-Senior Gangman),
Bapatla, Gr-C, Occ: House Wife, aged about 42 years,
R/o. D.No.12-315, Islampura, Mancherial,
Adilabad District, Telangana.
.... Applicants.
(By Advocate : Mrs. S Anuradha)
Vs.
1. Union of India, represented by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway Secunderabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Secunderabad Division,
Sanchalan Bhavan, 4th Floor, Secunderabad-500071.
... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. M Swarna, Addl.CGSC )
---
Page 1 of 8
OA/613/2022
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-
"that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd applicant for compassionate appointment at the earliest and declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the 2nd applicant which is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived frivolous and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India" and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No.1 is the wife of Late K Rajeeru and the Applicant No.2 is her 2nd Son. Late K Rajeeru, while working in the respondents' organization as Senior Gangman, died in harness on 24.12.2004. It is submitted that, vide Representations dt. 02.08.2021 & 07.08.2021, the Applicant No.1 applied for compassionate appointment for her son i.e. the Applicant No.2, but the same were not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the applicants have filed the present OA.
3. I) Mrs. M Swarna, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed reply in the matter and submitted that Mr. Rajeeru, Ex- Sr.Gangman, died in harness on 24.12.2004, leaving behind three sons and a widow. Thereafter, the Applicant No.1, vide Representation dt. 11.02.2009, requested for appointment of her son, Shri K Mahender, on compassionate grounds. Further, vide Application dt. 27.02.2009, the Applicant No.1 requested time for her son to acquire minimum educational qualification, as her son was possessing only VI class qualification at that time. Her request was acceded to and she was advised to submit her Page 2 of 8 OA/613/2022 application, after her son acquires minimum educational qualification in terms of Board's Letter dt. 20.07.1999, which states that the minimum educational qualification required for being considered for an appointment on compassionate grounds in a Group-D post was VIII class pass. Further, vide Office Letter dt. 22.04.2009, the Applicant No.1 was advised that the time limit for submission of application for appointment on compassionate grounds is five years from the date of occurrence of event.
II) The Staff & Welfare Inspector(S&WI), vide his Report dt. 09.10.2009 stated that the candidate Mr. K Mahender, appeared for SSC Examination privately in July, 2009 and failed in four subjects for the second time. The Applicant No.2, vide Application dt. 07.10.2009, sought time up to July, 2010, to acquire SSC qualification. Thereafter, vide Representation dt. 09.11.2009, the Applicant No.1, requested the respondents to appoint her son on compassionate grounds, as he had the educational qualification of IX class pass, duly enclosing Transfer Certificates of VI & IX Class. As such, the Staff & Welfare Inspector was deputed to investigate the genuineness of both the Transfer Certificates and, vide Report dt. 24.11.2009, it was reported that the Transfer Certificate of VI Class is genuine but the Transfer Certificate of IX Class is not genuine. Therefore, the case was put up to the Competent Authority who rejected the case of the Applicant No.2, stating that 'As Sri K Mahender was a major at the time of demise of his father and had not acquired minimum educational qualification even up to five years, his case cannot be considered for Compassionate Appointment. Further, he has indulged in the production of a bogus certificate from Adarsha Vidya Nikethan High School/Bellampalli Page 3 of 8 OA/613/2022 in an effort to prove that he studied up to IX standard(from I class) in the said school. He has already produced TC issued by ZPSS/Rebenna(from II class to VI class) which is established to be genuine. It is therefore obvious that the TC issued by Adarsha Vidya Nikethan High School is fake/fabricated. The cases of such fraudsters do not deserve any compassion'. Hence, the case is regretted for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was communicated to the Applicants vide Office Letter dt. 08.02.2010. However, the Applicant No.1 again approached the respondents through her representations from Hon'ble Members of Parliament to the General Manager, SCR. Moreover, the latest representations which were submitted on 02.08.2021 & 07.08.2021 were also disposed of by the Competent Authority, as no new facts were brought out to review the earlier decision of the Competent Authority. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the Applicant No.2 submitted fabricated documents with the ill-intention of obtaining an appointment in the respondents' organization using fraudulent means. As integrity, honesty, conduct and character are the pre-requisites expected from a person joining the Govt. Service, the candidate made himself ineligible for being considered for an appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a numerous judgments held that 'the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over'. The respondents' counsel prayed to dismiss the OA.
Page 4 of 8
OA/613/2022
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
5. The father of the applicant, who served as Senior Gangman at Bapatla, died on 24.12.2004 leaving behind wife, who is the first applicant, two sons including second applicant and a married daughter. The first application for compassionate appointment was given in the year 2009 (11.02.2009), after a gap of approximately 5 years. On 20.07.2009, she requested the respondent-authorities for extension of time because the second applicant was not having the minimum educational qualification, which is 8th Class pass. The second applicant was VI Class pass only. On 22.04.2009, the respondents have informed the applicant about the 5 year time period within which he should submit the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second applicant, vide his application dated 07.10.2009, sought time up to July 2010, to acquire SSC qualification. But, on 09.11.2009, his mother, who is the first applicant herein, requested the respondents to appointment her son on compassionate ground as he had the educational qualification of 9thClass pass. While submitting so, she enclosed the transfer certificate of the 6th and 9thClass. But, surprisingly, when the Welfare Inspector investigated the genuineness of both the transfer certificates, he found that the transfer certificate of 6 thClass is genuine, but the transfer certificate of Class 9th is not genuine and because of submission of bogus certificate, the respondent-authorities have denied him the compassionate appointment.
Page 5 of 8
OA/613/2022
6. The submission of fabricated document is nothing but the ill- intention of gaining an appointment, which should be viewed seriously. The respondents have accommodated all the requests of the family like waiting for the second applicant to acquire necessary qualification and also given suitable guidance like informing them about the 5 year time period etc. Therefore, it is not correct to find fault with the respondents. The second applicant, who is not qualified and indulged in submitting bogus certificate, does not deserve to be given compassionate appointment. For joining the Government service, the applicant must have integrity, honesty and good character as the pre-requisite qualifications. The second applicant was not even minor at the time of demise of his father, but he was not having minimum educational qualification, which is Class VIII pass, so without proper qualification, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted. Moreover, the second applicant has filed this OA after 18 years of the death of his father which makes it time barred.
7. It is well known fact that the compassionate appointment is a unique type of appointment and the object of giving such appointment is to support the family of the Ex-employee left with any other means of livelihood by taking into consideration the severe financial condition of the family of the deceased at the time of death of the bread-winner. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that "the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of the candidate is considered with the Government's policy of providing immediate relief to Page 6 of 8 OA/613/2022 the deceased family". It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis....... Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the Public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It must be remembered that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families, which are equally, if not more destitute....." An appointment on compassionate grounds "as a matter of course" is not justifiable. The only ground, which can justify compassionate ground appointment are the penurious condition of the family."
8. It is a settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment as held in various judgments and one of which was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Another v Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis". It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "the claim of compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable Page 7 of 8 OA/613/2022 only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme".
9. In view of these circumstances as elaborated above, the applicant is not eligible to be given the compassionate appointment due to he being not qualified and the fraud committed by him in submitting bogus Transfer Certificate to authorities. The respondents are right in rejecting his request application. There is no injustice done to the applicant. Therefore, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Ram/Dsn Page 8 of 8