Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Kavitha K.Francis vs The Senior Superintendent on 7 June, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 955/2011
Dated 7th day of June, 2012
C O R A M
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Kavitha K.Francis, D/o Francis
Echarangattu House, Manattilparambu,
Nadakkavu P.O, Udayamperoor, Ernakulam.
.......Applicant
By Advocate Mr. E.D.George
Vs
1 The Senior Superintendent, RMS;,
EK Division, Ernakulam.
2 The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.
3 Director General of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.
4 Union of India, represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Communications Deptt.of Posts, New Delhi.
.....Respondents.
By Advocate Mr. Varghese P.Thomas, ACGSC.
The Application having been heard on 30.5.2012. the Tribunal
delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant, the daughter of deceased employee K.D.Francis, Mailman, of the respondent department, seeks compassionate appointment under Employees Dying in Harness Scheme.
2 According to the applicant, the deceased employee while working as Mailman, HRO, RMS, Ernakulam Division, Kochi expired on 3.8.2009. At the time of death, the family of the deceased employee consisted of his widow and the applicant. It is stated that the applicant is married and has two children. Her husband Mr.Kuttan is a drunkard and bankrupt. Due to his constant alcoholism and financial crisis in the family she left the husband's house and was living with her deceased father alongwith her two daughters. According to her she and her children were totally dependent on the income of her father who died on 3.8.2009. It is further stated that after the death of her father her mother, the applicant and her two daughters are struggling to make both ends meet. It is stated that she has passed SSLC. She submitted an application, Annx.A1, for compassionate appointment to the 2nd respondent. The widow of the deceased has also requested for compassionate appointment for the applicant. Further the applicant submitted a declaration in regard to looking after her mother. It is also averred that being an intercaste marriage she has no support from either of the families. They have no landed property and they are living in a rented house alongwith the widow. Realising the pathetic condition of the family, the respondents allowed her to join as daily wage labourer. However the application submitted for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents by Annx.A5 order dated 16.9.2011. The applicant challenges the rejection order as illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
3 The respondents contested the OA by filing reply. It is stated in the reply that family pension of Rs.5628 + relief per month was granted to the widow of the deceased. Further a sum of Rs.3,80,022 was paid to the family as terminal benefits. It is not denied that the applicant has submitted her application for compassionate appointment recommended by her mother Smt Usha Francis. The request was carefully examined by the Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 4.8.2011 and 24.8.2011 but did not recommend her as she is a married daughter, not wholly dependent on her father at the time of her father's death in harness. They further submitted that the applicant's husband is unemployed but he is duty bound to look after his family. Rules do not treat a married daughter as dependent family member of deceased employee. The respondents produced Annx.R2/1 a letter from the applicant's mother informing the respondents that she was forced to sell their house in 2008 itself for Rs.6.5 lakhs to pay off the loss to the tune of Rs.9 lakhs incurred by her son-in-law in his vegetable retail business. Still she is indebted to the tune of Rs.4.5 lakhs. Due to the irresponsible attitude of the son-in-law, she is compelled to allow her daughter and family to live with her in a rented house. According to the respondents it is not their look out as they have more deserving cases fulfilling the guidelines laid down by the DoPT on hand. It is submitted that due to shortage of staff the applicant is engaged to work as casual mazdoor. It is not the duty of the department to look after the married daughter of the deceased employee. In support of their contention they have cited Apex Court judgment on the subject. In the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India in CA 5101/2005 dated 11.3.2011, it was held that "...Compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largese irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be .... has rejected the claim of the applicant therein, holding that .... Compassionate appointment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee... as more deserving cases were available, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant ..."
4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5 The very fact that the respondents had allowed, the applicant to work as a casual mazdoor is an indicator, to the financial destitution faced by the applicant. In view of the drunken and irresponsible behaviour of her husband, she is forced to fend for herself and her two young daughter. Since the family is heavily indebted, they cannot survive on the family pension received by her mother. In my opinion the applicant and her mother are put to emotional and financial distress which compelled them to sell their dwelling unit on 3.8 cents of land even before the expiry of the late employee. The respondents have relied on the 2011 judgment of the Apex Court in CA 5101/2005 supra which emphasis the financial condition to be the main criterion for considering cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, these can be exception to the general rules when the circumstances warrant the same. During the course of hearing the applicant's counsel produced copies of two judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. (i) St.Ignatious High School Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2005(3) KLT 1000 (ii) Ashkarali Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009(1) KLT SN 17 (C.No.18), wherein it was held that "Married son/ daughter of deceased employee are also entitled for appointment if they were dependent on him/her and are otherwise eligible".
6 The applicant's father was a Mailman belonging to Group-D cadre. In other words an employee in the lowest rung of the respondent department. Generally wards of such employees are given due consideration for appointment under compassionate ground scheme. In this case the respondents had to act as per the rules on the subject by which the married daughter is not treated as a dependent. But the financial straits in which the applicant is placed, call for positive action on the part of the respondents as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in the judgment supra.
7. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. I direct 2nd respondent to consider the case of the applicant during the next meeting of the Committee and intimate her about the decision.. The O.A is disposed as above. No costs.
(Dated 7th June, 2012) K.NOORJEHAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER kkj