Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bina Roy vs B S N L on 14 September, 2022
0A 90/2017 1
© CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL .
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA 9p .
O.A. No. 350/00090/2017
Date of Order: 14.09.2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
In the matter of :
1. Smt. Bina Roy, wife of Late Asish
- Kumar Roy;
2. Sm. Pallabi Roy, daughter of Late
Asish Kumar Roy;
Both residing at 18, Tentultala, Purbachal,
Post Office Rajarhat Gopalpur, | Police
Station-Airport, Kolkata-700136, District-
24-Parganas(North).
setnenees Applicants
-Versus-
1. Union of India, service through
the Secretary, Department of
Telecommunications, Ministry of
Communications and Information --
Technology, New Delhi-110011. |
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a
Government of India Enterprise, having
its Corporate office at 102-B Statesman
House, New Delhi-110001.
SO pp
GA 90/2017 2
73. The . Chief General Manager,
Calcutta Telephones, Bharat Sanchar .
Nigam Limited, 34, BBD Bag(South), |
_ FO0R0T,
4, The Assistant General. Manager, -
(R & E}, Calcutta Telephones, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, 34, BBD Bag
{South}, Telephone Bhawan, 3 Floor,
Kolkata-700001.
--
Aenlagn.,
§ ae . | awe RESpONdents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. I. Bhattacharjee, Counsel
| Mr, A. K. Routh, Counsel |
For The Respondent(s): Ms. S. Ghosh Sinha, Counsel
ORDERORAL
~ Per Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J):
4. Learned Counsel for both sides are present and heard.
2. This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties.
3. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
| Wis Telephone Bhawan, 3": floor, Kolkata- ss oe oe --
OA 8D/2017 3 " @} Aq order he passed directing the respondent gutharities to withdraw and/or cancel and/or rescind the ord ler dated g® August, 2016 signed on BL" August, 2016 pussed by the respondent no. 4 as communicated to the applicant | no, 2 forthwith and to act in accordance with law.
b) An order be passed setting aside and/or quashing the order dated g* August, 2016 signed an 34" August, 2016 passed by the responder at ne. 4 as communicated to the uppiicant na. I forthwith, c}.An order be passed directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider the | case of the applicants und to offer the compassionate ground appointment ta the upolicant na. 2 without any further delay and to act in.eccordance with law.
d} An order be passed directing. the concerned respondent authorities to cer tify and transmit all the records of the case so that conscionable justice may be administered _ by perusing the same &y this Hon'ble Trlaunal e} Any other or further order ar orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fitand proper.
f) Leave may be granted to file this origina! opplication jointly under Rule 4 £5) fal of . the Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rule 1987,"
The brief facts of the matter is as under
Alt The husband of applicant no. 1 and father of applicant no. 2 herein, while working in the office of respondent authorities as Telephone Mechanic in a permanent 'role died in harness on 06.02.2013. the applicants had submitted their application in pro forma on 11.03.2013, follawed by an application in prescribed form for grant of appointment on compassionate g ground in favour of applicant na. 2 herein, A? The applicant no. 1 was informed by respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 09.08.2016 that her case was examined by the Circle High Power Committee (CHPC) In its meeting held on 30.03.2016, and, on examination of the case in respect of dependent's weightage, basic family pension, left out service, applicant's weightage, terminal benefits and accommodation, the net weightage point obtained by the applicant js below 55 (54 or less), The case that net point below 55(54 or less) shall be treated as non-
indigent and required to be rejected in terms of BSNL corporate Office "yet Vi
- OAGO/2017 4.
"fetter dated 01.10.2014, since the applicant received the net weightage point. below 55 and her case was not recommended for compassionate appointment, which is impugned herein Annexu re-A/4 to the OA.
a Learned Counsel for the applicant would mainly submit that the case of the applicant has not been properly assessed as they have erroneously considered the death-cum-retirement henefits of the deceased employee as weightage point which is not permissible.
| ie is further submitted that the applicant has not been served with the minutes of Circle Hi Power Committee held on 30.03. 2016, and, as such the applicant have been deprived to know the observation of the Committee in not recommending the case of the applicant. The respondents have frustrated the policy for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent family member of Government servant who died In harness.
A communication. dated 09.08.2016 {which was signed on 34.08.2016) annexed at Annexure-A/4 to the OA, and the copy annexed to the caiie which nated the points awarded to the applicant fie, weightage point sheet) | is erroneous and no proper weightage point has been granted to the applicant under the different heads. Further, it is submitted that the payment of death-cum-retirement benefits should not be taken into account for the purpose of assessment of indigenous condition of the legal heir of the deceased employee with regard to his/her claim for erant of compassionate appointment, but, in the case of the applicant the respondent had allotted 5 points under the head of terminal benefits. Even otherwise, the case of the applicant has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents. .
Gil | OA SO/2017 5 After arguing for some time, Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that, the applicants be allowed to submit a conipréhatisive representation before the respondent authority to know the actual assessment of the case of the applicant and for re-examination of weightage point. | & The respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that vide _ impugned order dated 09.08.2016, the applicant was conveyed that her case . Ta %\ for grant of compassionate appointment has been considered in terms of the policy In vogue as well.as in terms of the BSNL corporate Office letter dated ; 01.10.2014 which stipulates that "qs per the weightage point system, the cases with net points below 55 (54 or less) shall be treated as non-indigent and | rejected by Circle High Power Committee. The case with 54 or more net point shell be prima faite treated as eligible for consideratian by Cerporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment." along with . the impugned order, a copy of weightage paint obtained by the applicant:
under. different heads (which shall prescribe as per the nolicy). Since the cage of the applicant has been duly considered and the applicant has received only 25 net points, her case was not found fit for recommendation in terms of . policy in vogue. Dependent family members of the deceased employee was not found in indigent condition and hence the request of the applicant was " not acceded.
ft is submitted that the applicant has no fundamental vested right to claim appointment/permanent employment. The said decision of the respondent is just and also based on the family details af the applicant which A"
OA 90/2017 6 had scored only 25 weightage point. which is below the benchmark to be treated as indigent dependent family member of the deceased employee, therefore, the case of the applicant was rightly assessed and as such correctly denied.
ra | ~ The applicants have filed rejoinder and reiterated their . contentions, Additionally it is stated that the respondents have not passed | any speaking order in denying the claim of the applicant. 'The method of calculation of the net points of the applicant is not correct and the same is not in accordance with the circular of the respondent authority, The pro forma prescribed for the purpose of calculating the weightage point of claimant for grant of compassionate appointment is also not correct and the same has deprived the right of the applicant with respect to grant of compassionate appointment.
g. _ Heard both the parties atlength, |
5. lt emerges from the material on record that as per the scheme of DoPT for compassionate appointment under Central Gaiverlinient circulated vide memo no, 268-206/98-STN-lf dated 10.02.1999 of ADG (STN}, bar. New | Delhi for employment: to a dependent family member of a government servant dying in harness to relieve the family of the deceased employee from financial destitution, to help it to get over the emergency who is living in-
"indigent" and "penurious" condition and with any means of livelihoad.
.The respondents, i.e., BSNL, by taking the view of the guidelines issued by the Government of India on formulating a new policy guideline, accordingly, a Circle Power High Committee of BSNL Corporate Office had OA 90/2017 7 recommended for introduction of weightage point system within DoPT -- guidelines to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family which has subsequently been approved by the management committee.
of BSNL as per the following - | "1, The assessment criteria for recommendations of the indigent condition of the family by the Circle High Power Committee shall be :-
e Cases with 5S or more net points shall be prima-facie treated as eligible for consideration fy Corporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment a e Cases with net points below 55 (54 or less} shall be treated as non-indigent and réjected. _ Further, BSNL Corporate Office letter 00. 273-18/2013/CGA/P-IV dtd, 01.10.2024 para 92) conveyed that "as per the weightage point system the cases with net points below 55 (54 or fess} shall be treated as non-indigent and rejected by Circle high Power Committee"
Further, it reveals that as per the weightage point system, the items with positive points and items with negative points has been formulated by the competent authority, For the purpose of calculation of the pasitive points different weightage points has been prescribed under the heading of dependants, family pension, left out services, applicant's weightage, terminal | benefits, accommodation and the total of the same has been treated as positive points, whereas the monthly income of the spouse and other dependents + belated request has been treated as negative points. The said policy prescribed the system for calculating the total net points, Le., positive points -- negative points.
in. the instant case, it is noticed that as per the aforesaid _ assessment palicy the applicant had obtained 25 positive points and zero negative soints, thereby a total of 25 points has been obtained by the applicant. A copy of the said aes@isment has already been supplied to the -- applicant along with the impugned order dated 09.08.2016. As noted OA 90/2017 8 .
hereinabove, the net weightage point below 55 (54 or less} shall be treated as non-indigent as per the policy in vogue.
SELLLTLI LEE DPD indisputably, the applicant did not meet with the benchmark to be considered as indigent dependent family members of the deceased government amployee, therefore their claim has not been recommended for | grant of compassionate appointment by the respondents. The applicant failed to alace on record or satisfy this Tribunal as to how the total net point of 25 Is erroneous, or not able to establish as to how the respondents had granted less mark/weightage point to the applicants.
20. In view of the above factual matrix, this Tribunal ts of the considered opinion that the applicant has no. vested right to claim. appointment de hors the policy in vogue, even otherwise it cannot be said ~ that the case of the applicant has not been correctly assessed by the respondent authorities.
in view of the above, | do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned order, and, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. il. Accordingly, the instant OA stands dismissed, No costs. (Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavi) ~ Member (J) sl