Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Dimmiti Prasad vs M/O Railways on 11 March, 2024
OA/1546/2015
4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/01546/2015
HYDERABAD, this the 11th day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
Dimmiti Prasad, S/o. Anjaneyulu, aged 55 yrs.,
Working as ESM-3, Railway Signal Department,
Opp. Vinayaka Swamy Temple,
Kothuru, Kothuru Post, Pedapaud Mandal,
West Godavari District.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. M Suryanarayana)
Vs.
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railways, Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railways, Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
-----
Page 1 of 4
OA/1546/2015
4
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) Mr. Srinivasa, learned advocate, appeared through video conferencing on behalf of the applicant and Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
"to declaring the in-action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the applicant dated 25.03.2015 requesting to appoint the applicant son as on pathetical and miserable deteracted health condition of the applicant is illegal and arbitrary and seeking consequential direction to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and to appoint the applicant's son in any suitable post
2) Consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and to appoint the applicant son in any suitable post on permanent basis by considering the representation dated 25.03.2015 of the applicant:
3) and pass such other order or order as the deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;"
3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
The applicant respectfully submits that the applicant is working as ESM-3 in Railways Signal Department and having joined on 25.11.1981, he has put in a total service of about 34 years till today. The applicant further submits that he is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors and properly as a prudent employee, without causing any hindrance or inconvenience. The applicant further submits that while the matter stood thus, for the last 7 months, the applicant has been suffering from eye problems, i.e., getting heavy pain, and in the said circumstances, he is unable to perform his duties and to attend normal duties. As such, the applicant went to the Railway Hospital, Vijayawada, and got treated by the doctor there, and the doctor found that there was some defect in the applicant's vision problem due to his old age. The respondents once again requested the departmental hospital, and after one week, they treated the applicant and observed Page 2 of 4 OA/1546/2015 4 that there is some defect in the applicant's vision due to the old age. In this regard, the applicant underwent treatment for his eyes with a specialist doctor in private clinics at Vijayawada, who also observed that there were some retinal problems and advised the applicant to use some medicines under the supervision of qualified and experienced doctors. The applicant further submits that, considering the genuineness and ailments, age factor, instead of the applicant's personal service in the respondents department, utilize the services of the applicant's son, Murali Krishna, who had been presently working as an outsourcing employee in the respondents department as a maintenance supervisor for the last 7 years on a contract basis under the control of Dynamic Contract Services and S.R. Contract Services in South Central Railways. The applicant further submits that on 25.03.2015, he made a representation to the respondents, requesting them to consider his pathetically and miserably detracted health condition and sympathetically consider and absorb and appoint the applicant son, Murali Krishna, in his place on compassionate grounds in the respondents railways on a permanent basis, considering service rendered by the applicant to the South Central Railways. But so far, the respondents have not considered the applicant's plea so far. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the present O.A.
4. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the ground that when the applicant complained about the problem in his eyes, he was directed to the Railway Hospital Vijayawada for medical examination, from where he was referred to the Central Railway Hospital, Lallaguda, Secunderabad. The Board of Medical Officers found the applicant fit in the B-ONE medical classification, which is the prescribed medical fitness for the post. However, the applicant has requested an appointment for his son on compassionate ground and the compassionate ground appointment is provided to the dependent family member of a government servant who dies in Page 3 of 4 OA/1546/2015 4 harness or who is medically de-categorized/medically invalid and seeks voluntary retirement. The applicant who was fit to hold the post came to be superannuated in the year 2017. Hence, the applicant's request cannot be accepted.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant strongly argued that the applicant was medically unfit and due to his ill health, he has submitted his detailed representation for grant of compassionate appointment to his son. However, till date, there has been no heed or reply from the respondents to his representations.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that the applicant cannot claim the said compassionate appointment for his son as a matter of right since the applicant was not medically de-categorized. He has been made fit for B-ONE services and he has rendered his services till his date of retirement. Hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
8. It is to be noted that when the applicant submitted his request in the year 2015, the respondents' authority had not passed any reasoned or speaking order. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's representation dated 25.03.2015 and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVEMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/SB/
Page 4 of 4