Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Saravanacoumar vs M/O Communications on 15 February, 2018
1 0,A.No.104/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION/310/00104/2017 Dated this 12" day of January, Two Thousand Etghteen PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. B. BHAMATHI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER S.Saravanacoumar, S/o Late D. Selvarajan, No.16/H, Sekkizhar Street, Muthialpet, Viswanathan Nagar, Pondicherry. « Applicant By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy Vs, 1.Union of India rep by the Director(Staff), Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street, _ New Delhi. 2.The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry. . .. Respondents By Advocate Shri M. Kishorekumar Reserved on 30.11.2017 Pronounced on 12.01.2018 2 0.A.No.104/2017 ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Ms. B, Bhamatht, Administrative Member) the applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
{i} "To call for the records of the 3" respondent pertaining to his order which Is made tn No. REP/32-23/2004-CAT II (In so far as rejecting the case of the Applicant) dated 08.12.2016 and set aside the same; consequent to
(ii) | Direct the respondents to appolnt the applicant on compassionate grounds in any one of the post on considering his educational qualification with all attendant benefits; and (ili) To pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. The factual matrix of the case of the applicant in the OA are as follows:
The applicant's father, while working as Postal Assistant, died in harness on 10.3.2000, leaving behind his wife, daughter and three sons, including the applicant herein. The second son namely Suresh Kumar came out of the family and was not providing any financial help to the family. The third son is differently-abled and was solely dependent upon the applicant. Applicant belongs to ST community and has studied upto SSLC. The amount received as terminal benefits was used up for clearing the loan taken to méet the medical expenses of the applicant's fathér and for the treatment of his differently-abled brother. The balance amount of debt is still to be cleared. Further, the applicant's sister is suffering from neurological problem, which she is ken tT 3 0.A.No.104/2017 taking treatment. The family is surviving on the monthly pension, which Is not sufficlent to meet both ends. The family does not have any movable or immovable property.
2.1, The applicant's mother had made several representations to the respondents requesting for compassionate appolntment to the applicant. In the year 2011, he furntshed copies of certificates as sought for by the respondents to consider his name for appointment on compassionate ground. However, his case was rejected on 8.6.2012 based on the points system.
2.2. Aggrieved, he filed OA 1356 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order dated 6.6.2014. Without taking [nto account the observation made by the Tribunal in the order, the respondents rejected the request of the applicant for such an appointment vide order dated 14.9.2015, reiterating the stand taken by them in the reply filed in the said OA.
2.3. It is further stated by the applicant that as per the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the date of death of the employee is the crucial date to determine the penury condition of the family to arrive at a decision to consider compassionate ground appointment and not the date of selection. According to him, had the department strictly followed the instructions issued by the DOPT in the year 2013, he would have got appointment in the year 2013. Instead 4 O.A.No.104/2017 of following the scheme framed in the year 2010, they framed fresh scheme and as per which he was awarded only 52 relative merit . polnts, 2.4, It ts his further contention that had the respondents considered his differently-abled brother and sickness of his sister, he will be oO awarded more than 52 points. The rejection on the ground of less Indigent as per relative merit points and due to non-avatlabillty of vacancles is arbitrary and illegal.
2.5. The applicant once again filed OA 145 of 2016 challenging the order dated 14.9.2015 and it was disposed of by an order dated 1.2.2016 with direction to the applicant to furnish additional Particulars and thereupon the respondents to consider his case. But 4 Neh im ots te utarsruat' Ee cra Mey ata peste RTE "te the respondents rejected his case by an order dated 8.12.2016 stating that he is less indigent and also intimated that his case will be placed A) before the next CRC meeting. Hence the applicant has filed the present OA for quashing of the said order and also praying for an appointment on compassionate ground by taking into account the instructions 4 issued by DOPT OM datedgi6.1.2013,
3. The respondents fifd a detailed reply statement wherein it is or Ber oe ott stated that the claim for compassionate appointment was considered not only based on the amount of pension, but also other factors like number of dependents, left over service, property, minor children, 5 O.A.No.104/2017 unmarried daughters etc. The claim of the applicant was examined applying merit point scheme and he got 52 points as per the detalls and the documents submitted by him.
3.1. It is further stated by them that since the appointment on compassionate grounds Is ilmited to 5% of direct recruitment quota of vacancies only and'as there were candidates with more merit points as per the relative merit points arrived at, the case of the applicant was not approved by the CRC. A uniform procedure Is being followed in examining all the cases including the case of the applicant.
3.2, The respondents cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.5.2012 in CA No.6224 of 2008 in the case of UOI Vs. Shashank Goswami and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that rejection of compassionate appointment is valid when the applicant does not satisfy the parameters prescribed. The merit system adopted by the respondents for considering applications for compassionate appointment is to ensure transparent and objective assessment and is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases.
3.3, They have also stated that the time limit of 3 years in considering the cases of compassionate appointment was withdrawn as per the DOPT OM 'NO.14014/3/2011-Estt(D) dated 26.7,2012. Hence all the cases which were not recommended in the CRCs, will be oa st eidem unin ceemt atts ES he ar hes ned es ee Reet ele Er anor 6 O.A.No.104/2017 examined In the forthcoming CRC, along with other cases, on merits against the 5% DR vacancies of subsequent years and the case of the applicant will be examined again In the forthcoming CRC, on merit, as per the DOPT's Instructions cited above. For the reasons stated they prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of mer'ts.
4, The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions '@) made in the OA to the effect that had the respondents framed the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the quidelines Issued by the DOPT OM dated 16.1.2013, the applicant would have got appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, learned counsel for applicant has relied on the decision dated: 9.6.2014 of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Santhosh Prakash Anjariekar'v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others.
5. The Tribunal has given anxious consideration to the rival b contentions and perused the documents available on record and the . original records filed by the respondents on the direction of this Tribunal.
6. The case of the applicant lies within a narrow compass. He is aggrieved by the grant of 52 RMPs based on the circular dated 20.01.2010 and subsequent circulars dated 08.06.2012, etc. The applicant is primarily aggrieved by the fact that award of RMPs did not take into consideration his differently-abled brother and the sickness of i 1a 7 0.A.No.104/2017 his sister. If both had been considered, the applicant could have been awarded more than 52 polnts. The other grievance of the applicant Is that the vacancles meant for appointment on compassionate ground between 2000-2010 was adjusted by the department for the candidates already approved for appolntment on compassionate ground from 1993 to 2000. Hence, applicant was denied appolntment stating want of vacancy. Further, Instead of deciding the case of the applicant based on indigency, the grant of compasslonate appointment was denied only on the basis of vacancy and lack of educational qualification and not on the basis of RMPs allotted to the applicant,
7. A perusal of the original record shows that applicant was awarded RMPs by the respondents as below:
SI.No |Description Details RMP ; applicable L Family pension/pension|Rs,3500/-+DA 20 excluding DR 2 Amount of terminal benefits|Rs.2,50,438 16 received .
3 Monthly income of the earning|Rs.4000/- working in|2 members private 4 Property Nil 10.
5 Number of dependents & age |Two 10 6 Number of unmarried daughter | Nil 0 7 Number of minor children Nil 0 8 Left over service 09 year 08 months 4 9 Grace points for application|Nil 0 from widow 10 Total RMP 52
8 0.A.No,104/2017
8. As per the 2010 circular, there is no provision for award of RMPs In respect of sickness of sister, On the date of death of the applicant's father, his sister born on 26.12.1977, was already married, Hence her dependency had shifted from her father to her husband. Her dependency upon her natal family had ceased because of her Marriage. Even otherwise, her medical expenses, etc is by law deemed to have been borne from her marital side and not from her natal side as far as for purposes of award of RMPs for compassionate appointment.
9. As regards the youngest differently-abled brother, Shri Uday Kumar, his date of birth is 03.06.1980. He was minor and single at the time of death of the father. However, the circulars did not provide for award of any RMPs in respect of differently-abled persons in the family. Subsequently, the differently-abled brother also got a job.
10. On the date of death of the deceased employee, his elder son Shri Suresh Kumar born on 04.03.1976 was already married and working. He was not a dependent. The daughter who was born on 26.12.1977 was also married and not dependent. The applicant born on 16.04.1973 was single and had already crossed the 25 year age limit and hence he was not eligible for award of RMP for dependency.
Hence as per the 2010 circular which is the first circular notified for award of RMPs for a dependent 5 points were to be awarded for each 0 9 O,A.No.104/2017 dependent. The third son and the youngest slblIng Shri Uday Kumar who was differently-abled, single and not employed and was 20 years old at the tlme of the death of the deceased employee was ellgible for award of RMP for dependency. As per the 2010 circular RMPs has to be awarded as under for dependency:
SI.No. No. of dependents Points i 3 and above 15 2 2 10 3 1 5 Hence, in addition to the mother the only person eligible for award of RMP was the youngest brother Shri Uday Kumar on account of the fact that he had not crossed the 25 year age limit not because of the fact that he was physically/differently-abled. Hence, 10 RMPs were awarded for 2 dependents.
ii. As regards liabilities on account of unmarried daughter no points were given, since the sister was already married at the time of death of deceased employee.
42. There was no minor children and hence award of nil points on this context is correct.
13, As regards family pension, the widow' was granted Rs.3500 as family pension and hence as per the circular she was eligible for award of 20 points which was correctly granted.
BELA EY tee Na ee yct een E ie r Poe N TTL pearls 10 0.A.No,104/2017 14, As regards terminal benefits, the amount paid was Rs,2,50,438 and In this respect as per the circular the applicant was eligible for 6 points which was also corrected awarded, iS. As regards income, applicant's Income was taken Into account being Rs.4000 per month which is not disputed in this OA. He was correctly awarded 2 points as per the slab provided for In the circular.
16. Similarly on account of movable and immovable property since it was certified through local verification that the applicant's familly did not possess any land or house 10 points as per the slab was awarded as per the circular. |
17. Since the left over service of the deceased employee was 9 years and 8 months, again as per the circular, applicant was eligible for 4 RMPs.which also was granted.
18. In this manner the circular of 2010 has been completely complied with in award of RMPs and applicant was not eligible for any further RMPs as per the circular, 19, In the reply to the OA, the respondents have submitted that the RMP for the last selected candidates in all the cadres was as follows:
Year of CRC RMP of last selected candidate in PA/SA Postman MTS 2012 69 75 91 2015 66 73 85 The applicant could not have been considered to have qualified given 11 0.A.No.104/2017 the very high cut off points.
20, Only 5 % DR vacancies for compassionate appointment was provided for under the rules. Hence all candidates with much higher RMPs, way above that of applicant, were considered for appointment and no right to the applicant had accrued to be considered ahead of those who were awarded higher points, as lald down in the 2010 circular, for being considered for appointment within the 5% ceiling. Hence, it Is mot a case where applicant's clalm for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the basis of want of vacancy. The rejection was on account of lesser indigency linked with the celling of 5% DR vacancies.
21. The respondents further submit that even though he did not qualify before the CRC of 2012 and 2015, his name Is still kept alive for consideration in the light of the circular of 26.07.2012 by which the time limit of 3 years was withdrawn. This means that in the forthcoming CRC, applicant's case would continue to be considered on merits along with other cases against 5% DR vacancies.
22. The contention of the applicant that had his case been considered as per DOPT OM of 16.01.2013, the debts and liabilities also could have been taken into account to decide the status of penury for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment and for the medical and other expenses incurred by the applicant's family points 12 oxo were to be awarded has no basis or merit and Is legally untenable.
23. The circular dated 16.01.2013 relled upon by applicant Is not on record. In the reply to the OA the respondents have clarified that the DOPT OM of 16.01.2013 Is only a continuation of the OM of 09.10.1998 by which the scheme of compassionate appointment was notified. The sald OM only consolidates and complies the varlous OMs and orders on the subject and does not frame any scheme by taking Into account debts, liabilities, Illness, sickness of family members, etc.
24. In view of the above discussions the applicant has been correctly awarded 52 RMPs as per the circular of 2010 keeping in view the status of pénury that existed at the time of death of his father. The RMPs were correctly granted as per the extant circular and in the light of the identified criteria in the 2010 circular. No criteria relevant for award of RMPs to the applicant has been excluded or under assessed for award of RMPs.
_ 25. As per settled law, the applicant has the right to be considered for compassionate appointment but no absolute right for grant of compassionate appointment itself. The applicant has been duly considered as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of compassionate appointment and we do not see any violation . of settled law on the subject. The Tribunal holds that the respondents fairly conceded that his case would continue to be considered. before 13 O0.A.No.104/2017 forthcoming CRCs and if applicant's RMPs of 52 becomes higher, i.e., if he is found more indigent than others, he would certainly be considered for appointment. But so long as he figures with points less than the last selected candidate his case will continue to be considered as less indigent. This linked with adherence of 5% ceiling of DR vacancies for compassionate appointment will continue to be deciding factor in grant of compassionate appointment.
26. We see no violation of the decision dated 9.6.2014 of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Santhosh Prakash Anjarlekar v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others, relied upon by applicant.
27. In view of the above both based on facts and law, the OA is not liable to succeed. The impugned order does not merit any interference by the Tribunal.
28. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.