Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Kumar vs M/O Defence on 9 August, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3170/2015
Reserved on:02.08.2018
Pronounced on:09.08.2018
Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Shri Devender Kumar
Aged about 26 years
Vehicle Mechanic, Grade „C‟ Token No.108
S/o Late Shri Parvesh Kumar
R/o H.No.RZ-244, Second Floor
Street No.09, T-Extension, Vishwas Park
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110 059. ... Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri R.K.Bhola)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Ministry of Defence
Through Secretary
South Block
New Delhi.
2. Chief of Army Staff
Army Head Quarters
New Delhi.
3. Commanding Officer
Station Workshop, EME
Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Ashish Nischal for Shri Rajinder Nischal)
ORDER
The current OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(A) To pass appropriate direction to the Respondents no.1, 2 and 3 for considering the Application of the Applicant for an employment on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father who had expired in harness with Respondent no.3. (B) Pass such other further order/directions as this Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents no.1, 2 and 3."2
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the applicant died in harness leaving behind his widow, son i.e. the applicant who was then minor and a minor daughter. Since both the children were minor, Smt. Nirmala Rani, wife of the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds with the Respondent no.3. Vide order dated 10.11.2001, the respondents informed her that her case was considered in four consecutive meetings of the Screening Committees in Oct, 2000, March 2001, June 2001 and Sep., 2001 but her case did not come in relative merit against the 5% quota due to constraints of grossly inadequate vacancies, and that her name was being deleted for further consideration.
3. The applicant states that she kept pursing her case by way of various representations with the respondents but received no positive response from the respondents. Ultimately, she requested the respondents to consider her son, the current applicant, for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband. To this request, the respondents vide their letter dated 02.12.2009 informed her that her request for compassionate appointment for her son (the applicant in OA) was rejected as per rules. The applicant issued a legal notice to the respondents on 01.06.2015 to which he received a reply on 14.07.2015 which the applicant is aggrieved with.
4. The applicant states that he is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. Being unemployed, he prays for intervention of the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents in the counter has submitted that the applicant‟s father expired on 08.12.1998 and his wife Smt. Nirmala Rani submitted an application on 07.01.1999 for being provided a suitable job. Her case was submitted to HQ Delhi Area more than once for getting the needful done. Ultimately, the case was considered but rejected by the Board 3 of Officers at Army Headquarters where merits of the cases were decided by allotting points based on the following attributes:-
"(a) Family Pension
(b) Terminal benefits
(c) Earning members, monthly income and income from property."
(d) Movable/immovable property
(e) No of dependents
(f) No of unmarried daughters
(g) No of minor children
(h) Left over service"
6. It is further mentioned that the case for appointment in respect of Smt. Nirmala Rani was considered by four consecutive Boards but due to inadequate vacancies and other constraints her case could not be considered and she was informed accordingly on 10.11.2001. The respondents state that vide a letter dated nil received on 13.11.2009, she had requested for employment of her son on compassionate grounds which was also considered but the request could not be acceded to.
7. The respondents have cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana dated 4th May, 1994 wherein various principles have been laid down for granting compassionate appointment. They stated that such cases have to be considered on merits and on the limited number of 5% quota reserved for this purpose. Since the applicant‟s father had died 18 years earlier and the family had sustained itself to overcome the economic crisis, the case of the applicant cannot be kept alive indefinitely, since there are other equally deserving contenders for compassionate appointment.
8. The Scheme for compassionate appointment has been put in place by the Government of India to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden vacuum and economic crisis which hits them when the sole bread earner of the family dies unexpectedly. It is unfortunate but true that there could be many similarly placed persons facing grave financial 4 hardships. It is for these reasons that various parameters are provided so that situation can be assessed objectively and assistance provided by way of an appointment to the most deserving candidate. A compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be claimed and exercised at any time.
9. Eighteen years have passed (now 20) since the father of the deceased expired. The emergent financial condition cannot be said to exist two decades after the death of applicant‟s father. The entire spirit of the Scheme is to tide over the "immediate stress" which, in my view, is long over. The OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.
(Praveen Mahajan) Member (A) /uma/