Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Angaleswari vs Posts on 6 November, 2023
Cah 1 OA No.310/00999/2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00999/2022 "re Dated this «© day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM: HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER 1.M.Angaleswari, W/o (late) P. Murugan 2.M.Paramaguru, S/o (late) P. Murugan ~both are residing at No.1A/17, Thirunavukarasu Street, Sivagangai. . Applicants By Advocate M/s R. Malaichamy Vs. 1.Union of India rep by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2,Superintendent of Post Offices, Sivaganga Division, Sivaganga. .. Respondents By Advocate Dr. K. Kannan 2 OA Wo.310/00999/2022 ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicants have filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"i. to call for the records of the 2™ respondent pertaining to his common order made in No.B2/11- 7 /digs dated 16.11.2020 in so far as the 1* applicant is concemed and set aside the same: consequent to, ii, direct the respondents to appoint any one of the applicants on compassionate grounds, on considering their educational qualification against any one of the vacant post.and;
iii to pass such further or other orders as this Hon' ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The I Applicant's husband was employed as Driver in the 24 Respondent's office and died on 04.08.2007 while in service. The Respondents did not convene CRC from the year 2000 to 2012 to consider appointments on compassionate grounds to the wards of the deceased employee. Had they conducted CRC in the year 2007, the 1° Applicant would got appointed on compassionate grounds in the year 2007 or 2008, since her daughter and the 2"4 Applicant were minor at that time, After framing a scheme for considering appointment, the case of the applicant was not recommended in the year 2012 by stating that she was awarded at] 3 OA No.3 10/00999/2022 only 86 points. In the year 2015 her case was again not recommended by stating that she was awarded 71 points. Therefore, she has approached this Tribunal in O,A.No.1604 of 2015 which disposed of the OA on 02.06.2017 by a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 15.03.2016 of the applicant's son for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, it has been intimated by a Memo dated 17.07.2017 that the case of the 274 Applicant will be considered in the next CRC, but till date there is no order passed in this regard. Thereafter, the 1" applicant was informed that her case has not been recommended vide common order dated 16.11.2020. Under such circumstances, the 15' Applicant filed Contempt Petition No.38 of 2021 on the reasons that the Respondents have not complied with the order made in O.A.No.1604 of 2015 in so far as the 24 Applicant is concerned, but this Tribunal closed the said CP by virtue of status affidavit filed by the Respondents by an order dated 27.07.2022. Hence the applicants filed the present 0.A,
3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. R. Malaichamy and Dr. K, Kannan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the 1° applicant is the wife of the deceased employee who was working as Driver in the 4 OA No.3 10/00999/2022 2" respondent office an died on 04.08.2007. The 2™4 applicant is the son of the deceased employee. He submitted that the applicants made several representations to the competent authorities to consider her case for compassionate appointment.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1° applicant filed O.A.No.1604 of 2015 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed on 02.06.2017 and in the said order it was submitted that the 24 applicant can make representation and the same can be considered by the respondent and pass a speaking order,
6. The learned counsel further submitted that 24 Respondent in his order dated 17.07.2017 informed the 1°' applicant that the case of the and applicant will be placed before the next CRC when it meets. Then there was no response from the respondents. Hence the 1* applicant filed CP.No.38 of 2021 in O.A.No.1604 of 2015 before this Tribunal and the same was closed by an order dated 27.07.2022 on the submission of the respondents that they have complied with the order of this Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that 15 applicant was awarded 71 points (RMP). The 1 applicant's husband died on 04.08.2007 hence the point system introduced in the year 2010 is not applicable to the case of the applicants. Even assuming without admitting the points awarded was 86 (RMP) for the 1® applicant in the year 2012 CRC. Thus it 5 OA No.310/00999/2022 is evident, the respondents have not awarded points properly to the applicants. If she was awarded 5 points for minor son and 2 points more for monthly income, she would have got RMP of 93 and would be selected, since the last selected candidate in MTS Cadre selected was with 91 RMP in CRC 2012. Thus he prayed that the relief to be granted to the applicants.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following case laws (i) Judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the WP.No.132 of 2018 dated 07.06.2018 (ii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No.19765 of 2019 (iii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.28451 of 2018 dated 10.04.2019.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the 1* applicant was considered for the post of MTS cadre with relaxation of educational qualification. He further submitted that at the time of conducting CRC in the year 2012, the Relative Merit Point (RMP) of the applicant as per the records worked out 86, whereas the RMP for the last selected candidate in MTS cadre was 91. Further ,he submitted that during the CRC held on 28.07.2015 it was found that her daughter was married and son became major and accordingly the Relative Merit Point worked out io 71, whereas the RMP of the last selected candidate in MTS cadre was 85. Hence the argument of the applicant that the candidates who were awarded less points were appointed to the MTS cadre is not correct.6 OA No.3 10/00999/2022
10. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that as per the directions of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1604 of 2015 dated 02.06.2017 the respondents considered the representation of the 24 applicant, the Relative Merit Point of the 2"¢ applicant was only 54, He further submitted the case of the 1°' applicant was placed before the CRC being with more RMP 71 that the 2"¢ applicant RMP was 54 and RMP is the sole criteria for deciding the case of Compassionate appointments by the committee. Even then the case could not be recommended by the committee for offer of appointment as the RMP of the last recommended candidate is 78 in MTS but the RMP of the 1° applicant is 71 and 2™ applicant is 54 only. Therefore the relief sought by the applicants cannot be granted hence prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
11. The applicants have filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the OA
12. I have considered the submission of the both the parties and gone through the materials on record. In-all the above case law cited supra by the learned counsel for the applicants' line of argument is that "It is settled law that case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in terms of policy decision, which is prevalent at the time of consideration". The said case law will not be applicable to the present case. As rightly pointed out by the respondents that various Courts has already held that the 7 OA No.3 10/00999/2022 appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various circumstances like eligibility and financial conditions of the family and the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme and the scheme does not create legal right and the candidates also cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen but has to be considered only under the new scheme. Therefore, it is rightly submitted that the compassionate appointment cases cannot be considered without applying Relative Merit system.
13. It is very clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has held in the case of LIC Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and Others (JT 1994 (2) 8c 183) that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of person on compassionate grounds but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such an appointment. In the instant case, even though the claim of the applicant was considered by CRC during the year 2012, 2015 and 2016-
17, it could not be recommended for the reasons stated above, In the present case, the 274 applicant was also considered and could not recommend his name for the reasons state above. Hence, the submission of the respondent is right that the applicants are not entitled for the relief sought for in the OA.
§ OA No.310/00999/2022
14. It is pertinent to point that I have considered a similar issue in OA.179 of 2019 wherein the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994(4) SCC 138 wherein the Apex Court while emphasizing that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course 'or in posts above Classes If] and IV, had observed that while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(1) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulation 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.
(1i)An application for compassionate employment must preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the decease/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be."
15. On an identical issue in O.A.No.967 of 2021 on similar circumstances, this Tribunal passed an order on 19.09.2023 which will apply to the present case also. After considering the discussions cited 9 OA No.3 10/00999/2022 supra, and after considering all criteria in respect of the assessment as well as rule position, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicants. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no interference is called for.
16. Inthe result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. aa ent ne ee