Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Devika S S vs The Accountant General Kerala ... on 26 September, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00515/2019
Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTIE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Devika S.S.,
D/o Late Sajithkumar V.R.,
Devnandanam, T.C.50/124(1),
Kulathara, Kalady,
Karmana P.O.
Thiruvanthapuram-695 002 - Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr.P.T. Mohan Kumar]
Versus
1. The Accountant General(A&E),
Office of the Accountant General(A&E),
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2. The Deputy Accountant General(Adm.),
Office of the Accountant General(A&E),
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.K.I. Mayankutty Mather]
The application having been heard on 14.09.2022, the Tribunal on the
26th September, 2022 delivered the following:
O.A. 515 of 2019 2
ORDER
Applicant is the daughter of late Sajithkumar, who was working as Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, the 1st respondent. Sajithkumar met with a road accident on 08.10.2016 and was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. While undergoing treatment, on 05.01.2017, he succumbed to the injuries leaving behind his wife and two daughters. The applicant is the eldest daughter of the deceased. She approached the 2nd respondent for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by Annexure-A1 order. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her in a suitable post under the compassionate appointment scheme after setting aside Annexure-A1 order issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. According to the applicant, on 08.10.2016, while Sajithkumar was travelling on his motor cycle, he was hit down by a motor car, causing serious injuries on his head and was immediately taken to the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, where he underwent surgery. But he remained unconscious till his death on O.A. 515 of 2019 3 05.01.2017. He was 43 years old and died leaving 17 years service in his career. He is survived his wife Smitha and two daughters. The applicant's mother, the widow, is working in a Co-operative establishment earning a monthly emolument of Rs.30,500/- only. But she has numerous liabilities to be met. During the period of treatment the mother had borrowed Rs.5 Lakh under Annexure-A2 demand promissory note; she had also availed a loan of Rs.52,000/- from Canara Bank, Puthenchanthai branch by pledging gold ornaments. She had also availed a loan of Rs.10,58,716/- as home loan from the State Bank of India, towards which Rs.9239/- is payable every month. According to the applicant, they are in dire financial straits and therefore employment under the compassionate appointment scheme is necessary for taking out the family from financial liabilities. However, the respondents rejected her representation, without considering the actual facts and the financial emergency faced by the family. Hence the application.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a reply on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the Original Application. According to him, the application is not allowable. The very object O.A. 515 of 2019 4 of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Quoting various authorities, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 209], Santhosh Kumar Dubey v. State of UP and Others [(2009) 6 SCC 481], it is stated that such an appointment shall be given only in deserving cases to provide immediate financial assistance to the family, who had lost its bread winner. Similarly, relying on the decision reported in Auditor General of India and Others v. G.Anantha Rajeswara Rao [(1994) 1 SCC 192], it was pointed out that such an appointment could be given only to members of the family of the person who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family. Relying on Umesh Kumar Nagpal and another v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138] he said that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the O.A. 515 of 2019 5 deceased. According to the respondents, such an appointment can be given only in consonance with the rules and schemes formulated by the Government. Relying on the decision reported in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [AIR 2013 SC 3365] and Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami [(2012) 11 SCC 307] he said that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically but it depends on various other circumstances, eligibility and financial condition of the family. Relying on the decision in Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others v. T. Padmakumari Amma [2007(1)KHC376], it is pointed out that such a claim cannot be raised as a matter of right.
4. Turning to the facts of the case, the respondents pointed out that the mother of the applicant is employed, that the deceased was given death gratuity of Rs.8,54,880/-, after adjusting the liability of Rs.83254/- besides a sum of Rs.75,602/- from CGEGIS. The mother is also entitled to get family pension at the rate of Rs.20,550/- . According to the respondents, the applicant is not in dire financial straits as claimed by her. Regarding the liabilities, O.A. 515 of 2019 6 according to the respondents, they have not produced documents in support of these liabilities. Moreover, enquiry revealed that the family is living in a single storied terraced house having an area of 900 sq. in 7.5 cents of land. According to them, monthly income of the family including the family pension comes to Rs.59987/-. In the circumstances, they contend that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the application is liable to be dismissed.
5. I heard learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had produced necessary proof that after the father had sustained serious injuries in the road accident the family had to spend huge amounts for the treatment, which is evident from the documents produced along with the O.A. Those documents are admissible and at no point of time, the respondents had raised doubt regarding the credibility of those documents. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there was no proper application of mind, the discretion expected to be exercised by the authorities was not exercised. The field study report of the Welfare Officer is not forthcoming and such a conclusion was reached on the mere reason that the mother of the applicant is O.A. 515 of 2019 7 employed in a Co-operative Society. According to the learned counsel, the conclusions arrived at by the respondents are based on mere conjunctures and surmises.
6. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, they are expected to consider the application only on the basis of the guidelines and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. When such guidelines are applied, it has become very clear that the applicant is not entitled to get assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme. According to the learned counsel, what is necessary is immediate help which was expected to be given in the case of a person who died prematurely. Here, DCRG and other amounts have been given. The family is earning nearly Rs.60000/- per month and therefore, this is not a fit case for extending employment assistance. The learned counsel also reiterated the dicta in the decisions quoted supra. But according to the learned counsel for the applicant, many of the decisions of are not applicable to the facts of the case.
7. There cannot be any dispute on the object and intention behind the scheme formulated for the purpose of granting O.A. 515 of 2019 8 employment assistance to a dependent of an employee who died in harness. In deserving cases, in order to save the dependents from destitution and penury, they should be given financial help as well as employment assistance. It is the duty of the State. But as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, merely for the reason that a person had died in service, a blanket claim cannot be raised for employment by a dependent. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2000) 7 SCC 192], compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis caused due to the death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Similarly, it is the settled proposition that no one can claim employment under the dying in harness scheme as a matter of right. In this connection, it is important to note the following passage from the decision in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrabarthy Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583].
"6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in O.A. 515 of 2019 9 order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years."
8. The claim of the applicant has to be considered viz-a-viz the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and other Courts in numerous decisions relied on by the parties. It is the common case that the said Sajithkumar had died at the premature age of 43 years. While working as Senior Accountant in the office of the 1 st respondent, he met with an accident and after undergoing treatment for a few months in hospital, atlast he succumbed to the injuries. No O.A. 515 of 2019 10 doubt, the sudden and untimely death of the father at the age of 43 years must have created a vacuum in the life of the children who were students at that time. The emotional and financial loss caused to the family is irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of money or by giving employment. All the same, granting employment assistance to a deserving family member arises only if he/she satisfies the conditions evolved by the authorities over a period of time. The correctness of the reasoning recorded by the authority is judiciable.
9. In the case, both the parents of the applicant were employed. It is not disputed that the mother is employed in a Co- operative Society under the Kerala Health Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and she has a regular monthly earning of her own. In other words, by the sudden demise of the father, it cannot be said that the family had fallen in straitened circumstances that led to destitution and utter penury.
10. It may be true that the mother of the petitioner has availed a housing loan of over Rs.10 lakh from the State Bank of India. All the same, she is an earning member. By availing such a loan, they have only acquired land or house to their credit, which is an asset O.A. 515 of 2019 11 despite outstanding liability. Moreover, from Annexure-A5 it is clear that the widow is drawing a basic pension of Rs.20550/- . After the death of Sajithkumar the family has been given DCRG of Rs.8,54,880/- besides other amount from the GPF, Life Insurance Policy, CGE Insurance amount etc. It is not known whether the deceased had leave at credit to be encashed. Similarly, there is no mention whether the legal representatives could claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Normally, such amounts are also due. It is very pertinent that even though some amounts were availed for the treatment of Sajithkumar, nearly Rs.8,83,770/- was paid towards terminal benefits which are sufficient to pay back such amounts.
11. After evaluating the entire circumstances and the settled principles of law governing the subject, I am not convinced that the applicant deserves to be appointed under the employment assistance scheme. It was submitted that number of posts to be filled under that scheme is limited. If such a scheme is not implemented in its letter and spirit, the most deserving candidate will be excluded from the zone of consideration and therefore, the officials are expected to take extra care in granting the benefit to the deserving candidates only. O.A. 515 of 2019 12
On these considerations, I do not find any merit in the application. It is dismissed. No costs.
Dated this the 26th September, 2022.
JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds O.A. 515 of 2019 13 Applicant's Annexures Annexure-A1 True copy of the Order/letter No.DAG(A)/C. Cell/Comp-
Appt./2018-19/68 issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 12.04.2018 Annexure-A2-: True copy of the demand promissory note, executed by the mother of the applicant to Mrs. Usha Vijayakumar, dated 08.11.2016 (with translation) Annexure-A3: True copy of the gold loan ticket issued from Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 19.03.2015 Annexure-A4: A true copy of the loan arrangement letter executed by the mother of the applicant in favour of Canara Bank, for securing housing loan Annexure-A5:True copy of the representation to the 1st Respondent requesting for appointing her on compassionate grounds, addressed to the 1st Respondent, dated 15.12.2017.
Respondents' Annexures Annexure-R1(a): True copy of Circular No.34 issued in No.09-Staff Entt.
(Rules)/12-2015 ********