Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhim Singh vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 23 January, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.224/2016
Reserved on: 08.01.2019
Pronounced on: 23.01.2019
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Bhim Singh
S/o Late Shri Jai Singh, Peon
Aged about 46 years)
R/o H. No. D-1/44, Street No.1,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093
-Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Dinesh Kumar)
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
East Delhi, Delhi-110092
-Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Shukla)
ORDER
The OA has been filed seeking the following relief:
"8.1) to direct the respondent to appoint the applicant in Group 'C' or Group 'D' post on compassionate grounds;
2 OA-224/16 8.2) to allow consequential reliefs/directions; 8.3) to allow any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, briefly are as follows:
a) The father of the applicant was a regular employee in the office of the respondent in Group 'D' post. He expired on 01.08.2003 and thereafter the applicant made his application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant's case was considered and socio economic report was prepared on 27.01.2005 in which the applicant's case was found to be genuine.
b) In the meetings of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 10.04.2006, 20.04.2007 and 24.6.2008, the applicant's case was found to be deserving but was postponed because of lack of sufficient vacancies within the limitation of 5% of the total vacancies for appointments on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the applicant was notified through letter dated 30.07.2008, that his appointment has been deferred due to non availability of vacancies. The 3 OA-224/16 applicant made further requests, obtained information through RTI Act, and also made a last representation on 25.03.2013 with regard to his appointment. The respondent did not reply to this communication and also did not reject his representation.
3. The applicant has given the following grounds for the present OA:
a) Though his case was a deserving one, he was not given the compassionate appointment.
b) The respondent wrongly calculated the 5% limitation for the vacancies for compassionate appointments every year.
c) The respondent have not followed the rules for granting compassionate appointment.
4. The respondent in the counter reply submitted that the request of the applicant was considered on 10.04.2006, 20.04.2007 and 24.06.2008 for appointment on compassionate grounds and finally the case was closed due to the non availability of vacancies as there is a limitation of 5% on the number of vacancies to be filled through compassionate appointments. The applicant was also accordingly informed through letter dated 4 OA-224/16 18.11.2009. He also stood informed through various other agencies which he approached consequent to rejection of his case such as SC Commission, whereby he was informed about the status of his case.
5. The respondent also submitted that as the matter was closed in the year 2008, the present OA is time barred. It is also submitted that the OA suffers from the defect of mis-joinder. The applicant's father worked in the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which has now been trifurcated and after the trifurcation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation has been designated as the organization for handling court cases. All matters relating to recruitment are looked after by South Delhi Municipal Corporation.
6. The applicant filed a rejoinder in which he has claimed that he was not informed about the rejection of his application and specifically denied receiving any letter dated 18.11.2009 regarding rejection. On the contrary through the letter dated 30.7.2008 he was informed that though he has been considered for compassionate appointment his appointment has been postponed only on the ground of insufficient vacancies and his case would be placed in the next meeting of the Compassionate 5 OA-224/16 Appointment Committee whenever held. It is submitted that the committee decision dated 24.6.2008 also records that the applicant's is a deserving case but due to lack of sufficient vacancies due to the restriction of 5% on the number of seats to be filled by compassionate appointment it is being postponed. No date has been given by the respondent when any meeting was held in which the candidature of the applicant was rejected. The 'List of cases' relied upon by the respondent does not show at all as to in which meeting of the committee and on which date the candidature of the applicant was rejected. As regards limitation it has been submitted that since he did not receive any reply to his last representation made on 25.03.2013, he continued waiting. In the RTI reply dated 05.10.2012 also, the respondent did not disclose about the date of meeting in which the Committee rejected the candidature of the applicant. The applicant contends that it is the manner of working of the respondent which is responsible for the delay, if any.
7. The respondent filed certain additional documents containing details of compassionate appointments made year wise, dates of Compassionate Appointment Committee meetings held from 10.4.2006 to 30.4.2010, some record relating to Compassionate 6 OA-224/16 Appointment Committee meetings held on 24.6.2008, 20.4.2007 and an incomplete document possibly for the year 2006.
8. Learned counsels for the two sides took forward arguments in support of the pleadings.
9. On the issue of limitation, the applicant had filed MA No. 225/2016 which after being considered, was allowed by this Court on 06.10.2017 and hence this issue need not be discussed again.
10. I have carefully gone through the pleadings on record as also the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the two sides.
11. The documents submitted by the respondent include records of the meetings in which the case of the applicant had been considered, postponed and a document with the title 'List of cases for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground' which mentions that the case of the applicant was finally closed on account of lack of vacancies. However, these records while mentioning the case relating to the applicant are not complete records. For instance, in relation to the meeting dated 10.04.2006, the document submitted as "Minutes of the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee" contains cases only 7 OA-224/16 from serial number 17 to19, in which the applicant is at serial number 17. Similarly, for the meeting of 20.04.2007, the record given is only for serial numbers 7, 8 and 9 in which the applicant is at serial number 9. As regards meeting of 24.06.2008 record given is only for serial number 7, 8 and 9 in which the applicant is at serial number 9. All these records only give a very selective picture and the facts and conclusions in relation to the other cases that must have been considered have not been put up. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the complete minutes could not have been submitted. It is also not clear as to what prevented the respondent from presenting a comprehensive picture in the pleadings giving the details of number of vacancies available year wise and the number of compassionate appointments made against said such vacancies. It should also have been explained with details as to how some cases were recommended for appointment and others rejected and what was the methodology followed.
12. In the document with the title 'List of cases for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground' the following entry has been made against the applicant:
"The deceased has left behind his wife (housewife), three sons and one daughter (Married). All sons are unmarried and unemployed.
8 OA-224/16 The elder son of the deceased who has applied for compassionate appointment. As per report of LWD, the family lives in Rental House (1000/- P.M.). The family has to pay Rs. 4 lacs towards loan. There is no source of income. The Third son of the deceased is doing a Labour Work. The socio economic condition of the family is not good. This case was postponed during the previous meeting held on 10.04.06 & 20.04.07. This case was considered third time by the Committee. But, due to lack of vacancies, no relief can be given to the applicant. This case may be closed as per the instructions of GoI on the subject."
From a reading of this, one can infer that the case of the applicant was closed in the third meeting in which his case was considered and that meeting as per the respondent's own averment was held on 24/6/2008. However the letter dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure A-
5), and also submitted by the respondent in the counter reply as part of Annexure R.3 (Colly), sent to the applicant reads as follows:
"With reference to your application for appointment on compassionate ground, you are hereby informed that your case was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 24.06.08. The same however been postponed by the Competent Authority, i.e., Commissioner, MCD on 01.07.08 on the ground of insufficient vacancies, there being 5% limitation on the number of vacancies to be filled by way of Compassionate Appointment. Your case will now be placed the next meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee whenever held, for consideration". (emphasis supplied) Here it is mentioned specifically that in the meeting on 24.6.2008 the case of the applicant was to be put up in the next meeting. It nowhere says the case was closed. The respondent in the counter reply as part of Annexure R.3 (Colly) submitted a part 9 OA-224/16 of the minutes of the meeting held on 24.6.2008, where at S. No. 9, for the case of the applicant it is mentioned that:
"The socio economic condition of the family is not good. This case was postponed during the previous meeting held on 10.04.06& 20.04.07. The committee observed that this is a deserving case but due to lack of sufficient vacancies, there being 5% limitation on the number of seats to be filled by way of compassionate ground, consideration in this case is postponed"
13. Thus there is a clear case of inconsistency and contradiction in the statement of facts in relation to the case of the applicant submitted by the respondent which the respondent failed to explain.
14. As regards the point of mis-joinder raised by the respondent in the counter reply, it is nowhere the contention of the respondent that the case for compassionate appointment of the applicant does not fall in their jurisdiction and that the applicant should seek compassionate appointment in either North Delhi Municipal Corporation or South Delhi Municipal Corporation. What has been referred to is only an arrangement between the three Municipal Corporations as regards being lead Corporations, Nodal Corporations or custodian of files and records. It is not denied that the substantive jurisdiction in this case lies with the respondent East Delhi Municipal Corporation, hence the burden 10 OA-224/16 of providing relief in the instant matter is also with them only. Any procedural issue like access to records etc. can be handled by different corporations involved through mechanisms which must already be in place. As such I find no merit in this argument.
15. It is also noted that the applicant has also not been suitably informed and his representations were also not duly considered and replied to. It is extremely important for public offices to conduct their transactions in a fair, transparent and equitable manner in accordance with law and any set of actions which suffer from lack of transparency are always open to misgiving. It is evident that the way the whole matter has been handled by the respondent raises many questions about the integrity of the process which remain unanswered.
16. In view of the discussion above, it would be appropriate that the case of the applicant is considered afresh.
17. Under the circumstances, without passing any order on whether the non appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds was correct or not, in the interest of justice, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and pass a self contained and speaking order within 11 OA-224/16 ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A copy of the order so passed by the respondent shall be duly communicated to the applicant within two weeks of the passing of the order. No costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi) Member (A) /ns/