Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Manepalli Vijayalakshmi vs M/O Railways on 11 January, 2024
1
OA.No.204/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00204/2018
ORDER RESERVED ON 09.11.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 11.01.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Manepalli Vijayalakshmi
W/o (Late) Narayana Murthy
R/o. D.No.58-01-19, Market Street
Jagannaickpuram, Kakinada
East Godavari District.
2. Manepalli Sudha Rani
D/o. (Late) Narayana Murthy
R/o. D.No.58-01-19, Market Street
Jagannaickpuram, Kakinada
East Godavari District. .....Applicants
(By Advocate Smt.B.Geetha)
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Operations)
South Central Railway
Secunderabad.
4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Secunderabad Railway
Secunderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri A.Surender Reddy, Senior Panel Counsel for Central
Government)
2
OA.No.204/2018
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking therein the following relief:
(a) Declare the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing Death-Cum-Terminal benefits payable to the 1st applicant on death of her husband, in spite of the representations made by the 1st applicant and further action of the respondents in not considering the case of the 2nd applicant, for providing compassionate appointment, as she being dependant of deceased employee, is highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also contrary to the CCS (Pension) Rules.
(b) Consequently, direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits payable to the deceased husband of the 1st applicant with interest at 18% per annum, from the date of accrual.
2. Brief facts of the case as adduced by the applicants are as below:
I. The 1st applicant's husband Late Sri M.Narayana Murthy was initially appointed as Booking Clerk in the respondent corporation on 10.06.1972. Later he worked as Senior Booking Clerk at Sirpur- Kaghaznagar Railway Station. While working as Sr.Booking Clerk, he was removed from the service vide penalty order dated 29.06.2000 for alleged misappropriation of Railway Revenue to the extent of Rs.2,375/-. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before superior authority and subsequently it is learnt that the superior 3 OA.No.204/2018 authority ordered for reinstatement whereas the said orders were not served on to the 1st applicant's husband.
II. While conducting enquiry in DAR proceedings, the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated in service rules nor objections were called for thus violating principles of natural justice. While so, the 1st applicant's husband had expired on 28.01.2003 having a service of 13 years ahead.
III. When the 1st applicant submitted representation to the respondents claiming to settle death-cum-terminal benefits due to be paid to her husband and also family pension, the Divisional Railway Manager, Secunderabad vide letter dated 23.02.2005 advised the applicants to submit a copy of death certificate of Sri M.Narayana Murthy and GP.46 Forms along with Bank Account number to take further action. In pursuance of the said letter, the applicants submitted the details required to the respondents on 08.03.2005. Thereafter, the respondents replied that they cannot settle the dues as Sri Narayana Murthy was removed from service and advised the 1st applicant to remit the alleged money of Rs.2375 to the office. Accordingly, the applicants remitted the alleged money to Divisional Cashier, Secunderabad on 14.03.2005. The applicants submit that in spite of remitting the money also, the respondents have not settled the terminal benefits due to the 1st applicant's husband till now. But an amount of Rs.24000 towards PF was given to the 1st applicant. 4 OA.No.204/2018 IV. When the applicants made representation to the DRM, SC Rly., Secunderabad on 07.09.2016 wherein the 2nd applicant requested to settle the dues of her deceased father and family pension as her mother was suffering with illness and also requested for compassionate appointment, the respondents replied that since Sri M.Narayana Murthy was removed from service, as per rules, the family is not eligible for sanction of family pension or appointment on compassionate grounds.
V. The applicants submit that Sri M.Narayana Murthy was straight away imposed with a major punishment of removal from service without following the procedure. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jameel vs. State of UP in SLP No.4917/2009, the punishment should be proportional and commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. In the instant case just for the mistake happened in accounting of money of a meagre amount of Rs.2375/-, the respondents have imposed punishment of removal from service which is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. Per contra, the respondents in their reply statement have stated that the since the husband of the 1st applicant late M.Narayana Murthy, Sr.Booking Clerk was involved in misappropriation of Railway Revenue to the extent of Rs.2,375/-, he was imposed with the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 10.07.2000. When the 1st applicant made a claim for settlement of dues for her late husband 5 OA.No.204/2018 M.Narayana Murthy, it was advised vide letter dated 23.02.2005 to submit requisite documents namely death certificate, GP.46 form, bank details etc. In response to the said letter when the 1st applicant submitted requisite documents, the respondents have paid amount of Rs.11,046 and Rs.13,560 towards PF and CGEIS respectively. Though the applicants received dues of late M.Narayana Murthy in the year 2005, after about 13 years from the death of her husband, the 1st applicant submitted a representation in June, 2016 requesting the 2nd respondent to consider sanctioning of the family pension and employment to her daughter the 2nd applicant herein. Then the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 26.12.2016 had replied clearly that as the deceased employee was removed from service, as per rules, applicants are not eligible for family pension or compassionate ground appointment. The contention of the applicants that late Sri M.Narayana Murthy was reinstated is denied in toto. This is proved by the fact that the 1st applicant when asked to submit requisite documents regarding settlement dues of her husband, she had submitted the same without raising any question about reinstatement of her late husband. Moreover, the settlement dues to the extent possible will not be the same in the case of in-service employees and employees who are removed/dismissed from service. As per the settlement dues paid in this particular case, i.e., in the form of PF & CGEIS in 2005, it is obvious that Sri M.Narayana Murthy was removed from service and not in service at the time of his death. As the 1st applicant's husband was removed from service, question of retirement benefits like pension or compassionate allowance does not arise as per para 65 of the Railway Servant Pension Rules- 1993. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered to be a right of a dependent of deceased employee. It is a benefit granted to a dependent of 6 OA.No.204/2018 an employee who dies in harness otherwise while in service or are medically incapacitated/decategorised. In the instant case, the deceased employee was removed from service due to a serious misconduct of misappropriation of Government cash and the applicants after a gap of 13 years after the demise of the ex-employee, appealed for compassionate appointment which cannot be treated as immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee. And hence, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Central Coalfields Ltd., vs. Smt.Parden Oraon, the applicants/dependents of the deceased ex-employee are not entitled for compassionate appointment. In regard to family pension, as the deceased Railway employee was removed from service, his pension and gratuity were forfeited. He had opportunities to agitate the punishment of removal from service to a proper forum which he had failed to submit. Therefore, the order of removal from service is final. Moreover, the 1st applicant's husband had not even preferred an appeal against the order of removal though he had a period of 3 years before his death. For the above stated reasons, the OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
4. Heard Smt.B.Geetha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.Surender Reddy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Perusal of the pleadings reveals that the 1st applicant's husband/charged official late Sri M.Narayana Murthy was involved in misappropriation of Railway Revenue to the tune of Rs.2375 during vigilance case at Sirpur Kagaznagar. The charged official himself requested administration vide his letter dated 26.03.2000 to recover the amount which itself indicates that he was not 7 OA.No.204/2018 performing his duties properly and resulting in a misconduct committed by him which is unbecoming of a Railway servant and hence he was removed from service in the year 2000 by the department. Subsequently, the charged official died in the year 2003. As stated by the respondents, the charged official on whom the penalty of removal is imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, was given 45 days time to appeal against the penalty order to the Appellate Authority. But he has not done the same even though he has sufficient time to do so which itself shows that the charged official was not very serious about his punishment. After his death in the year 2003, the applicants have represented the authorities for settlement of dues for the deceased employee. After considering the same, the respondents have paid the Provident Fund and CGEIS amounts to the tune of Rs.11046 and Rs.13560 respectively to the applicants in the year 2005. Thereafter the applicants have again submitted representation to the respondents in June, 2016 i.e. after about 13 years from the death of the charged official, requesting them for sanction of family pension and employment to the 2nd applicant herein. The respondents vide their letter dated 26.12.2016 had clearly stated that as the deceased employee was removed from service, as per rules, the applicants are not eligible for family pension or compassionate ground appointment. As contended by the respondents in their pleadings, as per para 65 of Railway Servant Pension Rules-1993, a Railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity and hence the question of retirement benefits like pension or compassionate allowance does not arise. The charged official had opportunities to agitate the punishment of removal from service to a proper forum which he had failed to do. Therefore, the order of removal from service is final. 8 OA.No.204/2018 Moreover, he had not even preferred any appeal against the removal order though he had a period of 3 years before his death. Hence, sanction of pension and gratuity to the family does not arise in the present case.
6. So far compassionate appointment is concerned, the primary object of appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate ground is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of sole bread earner. In the instant case, after passage of a long period of time i.e. 13 years since the demise of the ex-employee, the applicants appealed for compassionate appointment which cannot be treated as immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee. In view of the delay in making a claim for compassionate appointment, the very purpose of providing compassionate appointment owing to the death of the breadwinner is not served. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. There are a plethora of judgments viz., V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P.,(2008) 13 SCC 730, Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.,(2009) 6 SCC 481, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar,(2009) 13 SCC 112, State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, SCC p. 707, para 6 etc. where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held that 'compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time'. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is given solely on 9 OA.No.204/2018 humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
7. Hence, taking all the relevant facts into consideration, the view taken by the respondents in not considering the case of the applicants for sanctioning of pension and other terminal benefits of the ex-employee appears to be reasonable. The respondents have rightly not considered the 2nd applicant's case as a fit one deserving compassionate appointment. Keeping all the above in view, the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/