Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Harikrishnan M vs Accountant General on 24 March, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00328/2021
Friday, this the 24th day of March, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Harikrishnan M., aged 27 years, S/o. Late Unnikrishnan M.,
Laxmi, Mulloth House, Koloparambu, Ayyanthose PO,
Thrissur, Pin - 680 003. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. K.S. Bharathan, Mr. Alphin Antony,
Mr. Aadithyan S. Mannali, Mr. Visakh Antony,
Mr. Abel Antony and Mr. Christine Mathew)
Versus
1. The Union of India, represented by the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 002.
2. The Accountant General (Administration),
Indian Audit and Accounts Department,
Kerala, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
3. The Deputy Accountant General (Administration),
Indian Audit And Accounts Department,
Kerala, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-
695 001. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. K.I. Mayankutty Mather)
This Original Application having been heard on 17.03.2023, the
Tribunal on 24.03.2023 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The father of the applicant Unnikrishnan was a Senior Accountant under the 2nd and 3rd respondents. He expired on 17.8.2016 due to cardiac 2 arrest while in service. The applicant was studying for degree course at that time. Death benefits were given to the widow and family by Annexure A3 dated 9.9.2016. Applicant sought for compassionate appointment by submitting an application. It was rejected by Annexure A5. Reconsideration of the decision was sought by submitting Annexures A6 and A7 representations. Since there was no reply, the present OA was filed claiming that the rejection of the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment was without conducting proper inquiry as contemplated under Annexure A4 office memorandum issued by the DoP&T laying the guidelines for consideration of applications for compassionate appointment. It was further alleged that Annexure A5 was a non-speaking and cryptic order and did not disclose reasons for rejection. The various judicial pronouncements and the spirit of the scheme were not considered by the competent authority, it was alleged. The relief sought was for a direction to set aside Annexure A5 and to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Annexure A6 as per Annexure A4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant.
2. Respondents appeared and filed the reply statement, wherein all the allegations were denied. It was contended that the application was considered in the light of Annexure A4 office memorandum and the various circulars issued from time to time. It was contended that the applicant was not found to be in an acute penury and was not found to be eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment in the light of the applicable 3 guidelines. Various judicial pronouncements were also relied.
3. Heard both sides and examined the records. To answer the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was entitled for compassionate appointment and that Annexure A5 which was a non- speaking order was rejected without proper inquiry, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on various records, supplemented by judicial pronouncements.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that by virtue of Annexure A4, clause 13(b), a Welfare Officer was deputed to visit the house of the deceased. He interacted with the members of the family and report dated 7.4.2017 was submitted. The learned counsel placed reliance on Annexure R2(b), the true copy of the proceedings of the screening committee, to contend that the screening committee had considered all relevant aspects. Reference to the proceedings of the report of the screening committee indicates that the following factors were taken into consideration by the screening committee:
a) The mother of the applicant was presently working as a Guest Lecturer in an unaided school with a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
b) Consequent to the death of the Unnikrishnan, the family pension at the enhanced rate of Rs. 35,000/- was payable up to August, 4 2026 and at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- thereafter. It was also noticed that the family had received a total amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- as service benefits under various heads. The family had also received Rs.
5,00,000/- from HDFC Life as life insurance claim.
c) The family was staying in a terraced house in 10 cents. The land stood in the name of late Unnikrishnan and his two sisters. The mother of the applicant had inherited landed property, having an extent of 19.69 ares in Chalakkudy Taluk, though it was a barren land which did not generate any income.
5. The object of the scheme, as evident from Annexure A4, was to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness, thereby leaving his family in penury without any means of livelihood and to relieve the family from financial destitution. Under clause 5(a) of Annexure A4, one of the conditions for eligibility was that the family was indigent and deserved immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. It was also found that in OM No. 14014/18/2000-Estt.(D), dated 22.6.2001, it was specifically provided that the committee constituted for considering the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should limit its recommendation only in really deserving case. Annexure A5 clearly indicates the basis on which the applications are to be considered. Applying the above principle, it emerges that essential and vital points were considered by the committee for rejecting 5 the application.
6. Though the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that Annexure A5 reply does not state any reasons as to why the application for compassionate appointment was rejected, I cannot agree with that since Annexure A5 discloses the various parameters taken into consideration for evaluating the financial condition of the applicant. Annexure A5 itself corresponds to paragraph 14 of Annexure R2(b).
7. To substantiate the contention of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and that payment of lumpsum amount and pension to the dependents are factors which ought to have been considered in allowing the claim for compassionate appointment, and further that there was no right for compassionate appointment but only an entitlement to be considered in accordance with the prevailing scheme or the Rules framed by the employer wherein such scheme exists, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. T. Padmakumari Amma [2007 (1) KHC 376], Union of India & Anr. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 2294] and State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]. In N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka [(2020) 7 SCC 617] the Supreme Court summarized the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds as under:
6
"(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfactory of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."
8. These rules have been applied in P. Paulraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (WP No. 16590 of 2018), Devika S.S. v. The Accountant General & Anr. (OA No. 515/2019) and M. Swetha v. The Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 354/2022). The contention that the monthly pension payable to the dependents of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Amrita Sinha (Civil Appeal Nos. 7640-7641 of 2021). In Central Bank of India v. Nitin (Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 2022) the Supreme Court reiterated that where there is a financial eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment under the scheme, Rules which provide for financial criteria are valid and such lawful rules will have to be strictly followed as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others, who might be in a greater and far more acute financial distress.
9. On consideration of the above settled judicial pronouncements, it clearly indicates that to claim a compassionate appointment there must be 7 definite materials to show that the family was in acute penury and distress and they genuinely need an out of turn appointment. It was also intended to help the family to tide over the immediate consequence following the untimely death of the only earning member of the family. Though most of the cases in which applications are submitted may satisfy one or other conditions, the authority has to evaluate all inputs to select the most suited person required to be supported under the scheme.
10. On an evaluation of the above parameters, I find that the authority has properly exercised its jurisdiction and has taken into consideration all inputs and on a proper evaluation of the materials, arrived at a conclusion that the applicant is not entitled for the benefit. The above finding is unassailable. Consequently, the OA fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"
8
Original Application No. 180/00328/2021 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the certificate issued by the Amity University to the applicant dated 7.11.2019.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the Death Certificate issued from the Department of Urban Affairs to the legal representatives of Late M. Unnikrishnan dated 29.8.2026.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the Pension Payment Order bearing No. E56/16-17/p403/Pen/810 dated 9.9.2016, issued by the Director of Audit II Central Revenue.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training).
Annexure A5 - True copy of order No. DAG(A)/C.Cell/Comp-
appt.2017/460 dated 9.10.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the representation submitted by Mrs. Shiny T.T., mother of the applicant before the 2nd respondent. Annexure A7 - True copy of the reminder before the 2nd respondent by the applicant dated nil.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the judgment dated 30.12.2019 in OA 21/683/2019 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a)- True copy of the verification report of the Welfare Officer.
Annexure R2(b)- True copy of the proceedings of the Screening Committee for Compassionate Appointment.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-