Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Murali vs D/O Posts on 9 January, 2024
1 OA No.310/00397/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00397/2023
Dated this 9th January, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
R. Murali,
S/o late M. Raman,
No.14, Kanagar Street,
Theradi,
Tiruvottriyur, Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director(Rectt & Est),,
O/o Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Chief Postmaster,
Chennai GPO,
Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
2 OA No.310/00397/2023
ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"i) to call for the records of the 2 nd respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No. REP/32-33/2004-CAT dated 27.03.2023 and set aside the same; consequent to
ii) direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground in any one of the post in the 2nd respondent office on considering his educational qualification with all attendant benefits; and
ii) to pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant's father M. Raman died in harness on 12.01.2002 while working as a Group D, in the 3 rd respondent office. The applicant's father died leaving behind him, his wife, 3 daughters and a son, the applicant herein. He submits that he studied up to X standard (failed). At the time of death of his father, the applicant's younger sister was not married and the family is living in the rented house. He further submits that the terminal benefits paid to his mother was adjusted for clearing the loan received by his father while he was alive and they have no movable or immovable properties. His family is penury. Hence, he applied for 3 OA No.310/00397/2023 appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the applicant was forwarded to the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent for considering appointment on compassionate grounds, but the claim of the applicant has been rejected by the 3 rd respondent by an order dated 13.06.2012. Hence, he filed OA.No.681 of 2012, which by an order dated 17.07.2012 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh OA and hence he filed OA No.1040 of 2012 before this Tribunal. The said OA No.1040 of 2012 was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order dated 29.04.2014 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for the vacancies of subsequent years, but the claim of the applicant was rejected by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 19.07.2016. The 2 nd respondent in his order dated 19.07.2016 stated that the case of the applicant will be placed before the ensuing Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC for short) and examine on merit. Thereafter, there was no reply from the respondents. Hence, he made a representation and caused lawyer's notice to the respondents, but there was no response. The applicant lastly caused a lawyer's notice dated 27.02.2023 to the respondents and in response the 2 nd respondent stated that the case of the applicant was placed for vacancy year 2016-2017 but not recommended and further stated that the same has been intimated to the applicant through Division Concerned, but till date, no such order was served on the applicant.
Hence the present Original Application.
4 OA No.310/00397/2023
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant M/s. R. Malaichamy and the learned Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Kishore Kumar, SPC and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
4. The Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Postal Department has framed a Scheme dated 20.01.2010 for considering appointment on compassionate grounds. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the cut-off date for awarding points to various attributes is the date of death of the deceased employee. According to the applicant, this facts has not been properly considered by the CRC and points were not awarded properly to the applicant. Hence, the rejection of applicant's request is arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the vacancies existed for the years from 2001 to 2012 have not been taken into consideration to assess 5% DR vacancy for granting appointment on compassionate grounds in the case of the applicant.
5. He further contended that the 5% DR vacancy meant for the applicant and others of the years 2001 to 2012 have been adjusted and given appointment to the RRR candidates for the years 1990 - 2000. Hence, the order of the 2 nd respondent is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel submitted that in the impugned order dated 27.03.2023, the applicant was awarded 52 Points. Had the 5 OA No.310/00397/2023 respondent again placed the name of the applicant in the CRC for the year 2023, the applicant would have been selected and appointed as MTS on the reason that 8 th standard (failed) candidates with 42 points were appointed on compassionate ground as MTS. Therefore, he prayed that the applicant's name may be considered once again in the CRC.
6. Per Contra the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant. He contended that as per the latest instructions on the compassionate appointment prescribed by Postal Directorate based on the instructions of DoPT, the case of the applicant was considered three times by CRC and cannot be considered again and again. He further submitted that the case of the applicant was dealt with in accordance with the extant of Rules and Instructions on the subject matter and non-consideration of the applicant for CGA is justified and there is no merit in the present application.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant case was considered three times by the CRC and his present claim to be considered one more time by CRC is not acceptable. The learned counsel further pointed out that the present claim of the applicant i.e. after 20 years from the death of his father, does not have any merits which will invade the opportunity of the indigent families which are in need of immediate 6 OA No.310/00397/2023 assistance. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the OA.
9. I have heard the arguments put forth by both the parties at length. There is no dispute on the facts of the case. Admittedly, this is the third round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the present case the applicant's Relative Merit Point (RMP) is 52 and the case was placed before the CRC 2012, CRC 2015, & CRC for the vacancy year 2016-17. The educational qualification of the applicant is X standard fail and his case was considered for the post of MTS. In all the 3 occasions, the case was not recommended, not only for want of 5% direct recruitment vacancy in the respective cadre under RRR quota but also due to less indigent as per RMP secured by the applicant when compared to other candidates who were recommended. The RMP scored by the selected candidates compared to the score of the applicant is given below:
CRC Year RMP Post Eligible RMP of Selected Candidate PA/SA PM/MG MTS 2012 52 MTS Trainee 69 75 91 2015 52 MTS Trainee 66 73 85 2016-17 52 MTS Trainee 83 70 78
10. The main contention of the applicant is that had the 7 OA No.310/00397/2023 respondents placed the name of the applicant for the CRC 2023, the applicant would be selected and appointed as MTS on the reason that the candidates with 8th standard (failed) qualification on RMP 42 were appointed on compassionate ground cannot be accepted. As per the latest instructions on the compassionate appointment prescribed by Postal Directorate based on the instructions of DoPT, the case of the applicant was considered 3 times by CRC, therefore the case of the applicant cannot be considered again and again. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the case of the applicant was dealt with in accordance with the extant of Rules and Instructions on the subject matter and non-consideration of the applicant for CGA is justified.
11. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the application miserably fails, and it is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
12. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) MEMBER(J) 09.01.2024 mas