Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sameer Khan vs Northern Railway on 24 August, 2023
Centraja CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ainistra Admi rative CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A. No. 1396/ 2021 Chandigarh, this the 24.08.2023 HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J) Sameer Khan aged 27 years Group D s/o Late Kewal KrishanVillage & PO Mubarakpur Teh. Malerkotla Distt. Sangrur (Punjab ) 148001 ...Applicant (BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Karnail Singh) VERSUS 1, Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. -110001 email:@rb.railnet.gov.in
2. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer DRM Office Complex Northern Railway, AmbalaCantt. -110001 email:[email protected] nd (BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal ..Respondents Senior CGSC) ORDE RO (JE.
THAKUR, MEMBER
dminis
/eunq SINGH
istrat
nstrative Per: SH. RAMESH
Section 19 of
the
1. This OA has been
190/Fresh Act, 1985
Tribunals face
filed under
against the
impugned order No.
Administrative
No.
220 el
/ Substitute / Rectt./ 2020 dated 22.2.2021 Annex.
Authority rejecting the claim of the A- 9 issued by Incompetent Appointment.
applicant for Compassionate OA are that applicant' fath leading to filing of this
2. The brief facts 10.12.1998 in Train Accident at Level Crossing Gate on died in a in a been established in negligence on the part of Railways had which the report Accident Inquiry , A copy of the Accident Inquiry the course of as Annex. A-1. Unfortunately, after one year the is appended raised by his maternal uncle.
applicant's mother also died and he was applicant, the applicant was a At the time of death of the father of the attained the majority in minor aged 4 years only and the applicant for becoming the year 2012 and 10+ 2 educational qualification eligibility for his appointment. Applicant approached to the respondent NO. 1 by way ofarepresentation in the year 2016 (Annex. A- 3 ).
3. That vide letter dated 22.11.2016 the respondent NO. 2 who is incompetent authority for appointment as such had wrongly informed the applicant to come through Railway Recruitment Board whereas the case of the applicant is a case of Compassionate Appointment not through Recruitment Board. the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2016 approached to worthy Member of Parliament Sh. BhagwantMaan for the local constituency of the applicant i. eSangrur in Punjab. Keeping in view the financial status and factual position as well the case of the applicant for his appointment was dully recommended by worth Member of Parliament Sh. BhagwantMaan, A copy of recommendation is appended as Annex. A-
5. again the applicant has moved his representation dated 7.11.2019 Annex, A-6 to respondent NO 1 for kind consideration of the case but the applicant received no favorable communication, So far.
4. Notice was issued to respondents on 21.12.2021. In the written statement, respondents have stated that Group C" and "D" posts is appointment in Railways to conducted by RRBs and RRCS through national and regional newspapers advertisement from time to time. It 3 to challenge the is further submitted that he aPplicant has failed centrala. R-1. Respondents have taken a orders at Annexure A-4 and Annexure 10.12.1998 and his claim view that father of the applicant occurred on appointment came to be rejected on 22.11.2016, the direction for December, 2021 would neither being sought by the present OA in under Section 21 of the extend nor revive the limitation as prescribed application Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Moreover, there is no for condonation of delay.
statement filed by the
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the written compassionate respondents stating that the power of appointment on order A-4 is ground is vested with the General Manager whereas the who is not passed by DRM, Northern Railway, Ambala Division compassionate competent as per A-9. It is further stated that the appointment is a cause of continuous nature, hence, not barred by any limitation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Smt. Baljeet Kaur is a similarly placed person who was appointed on compassionate ground. Applicant has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Faryaz @ Fayaz Vs. Union of India in W.P. ©No. 1877 of 2015 D/d 28.05.2015 and Smnt. Baljit Kaur d/o Sh. Pargot Singh was appointed as fresh face substitute by respondent no. 1 and was posted under Ambala Division.
6. I have gone through the material available on record. From the pleadings it is clear that father of the applicant died in train accident 10.12.1998. The applicant had made the representation to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. From the facts itself it is clear that, the father of the applicant was never employed with the respondents. As per scheme of the respondents, the compassionate appointment is for the wards/ dependent of the employees who died in harness. So as per reply submitted by the respondents, group C and group D is conducted by RRB and RRCs through official advertisement in newspaper from time to time. Respondents department has clearly submitted in their reply that the extent of compassionate appointment rules does not provide for grant of compassionate appointment to the family of the victim of train accident.
representation has
itself, the
applicant's been
pleadings basis of extent rules of
7. From the appointment on the
compassionate provision for Compassionate
rejected for
tratiibvuna/e the respondents as
there is
victims.
no
Moreover, the applicant
has failed to show
appointment to the to be granted to the
compassionate ground is
that the appointment on
the
victims.
Tribunal does not find any illegality in above, this
8. In view of the Resultantly, this OAis dismissed.
respondents.
order passed by the
9. No order for costs.
(RAMESH SENGH THAKUR)
Member (J)
D