Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Hemraj Aged About 24 Years vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 8 February, 2011
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD ******** Original Application No. 1388 of 2008 Allahabad, this the _08th day of February, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Sharma, Member (J) Hemraj aged about 24 years, son of Late Shri Gangadeen, Resident of 1075, masihganj Maile Kitoriya, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. Applicant By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Ali Vs. 1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi. Respondents By Advocate: Mr. D.S. Shukla O R D E R
Under challenge in this O.A. is the order dated 01.09.2008 passed by respondents. Further prayer has also been made for giving direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per rules and reports of the Welfare Officer, and issue order for compassionate appointment in appropriate class for which a time bound direction is prayed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: -
That the applicant is the son of Late Gangadeen educated up to 8th class. It is stated that father of the applicant was working as Technician Grade I ` 4500-125-7000/- under C & W Jhansi was referred for medical examination and according to medical certificate, he was declared unfit in all categories by the Railway Medical Officer, Jhansi. The father of the applicant was suffering from Cancer, annexure A-2 and annexure A-3 are the medical certificates. It is further stated that no alternative job was given to Gangadeen-deceased. He was due for retirement on 30.06.2005 as per the date of birth i.e. 21.06.1945. That being declared medically unfit, the payment to the applicants father was held up and the family came under heavy debts due to so much expenses in the treatment of Cancer disease. Gangadeen died in harness on 16.05.2005. After the death of applicants father, an application was moved for compassionate appointment and in view of the report of the Welfare Officer, the compassionate appointment was refused. However, report was submitted by the Welfare Officer that the family is not possessing any moveable or immoveable property left by Gangadeen-deceased. It is the case of the applicant that one daughter of Gangadeen is unmarried, and family of the deceased is living in rented house and the deceased left heavy debts and other important liabilities. It is stated that the respondents considered the case of the applicant and mentioned wrong date of retirement as dated 24.03.2005 instead of 30.06.2005 and on this ground the prayer of the applicant was rejected. The case of the applicant was not considered under Rules in case an employee is medically decategorised, then alternative work is to be offered to him or he may seek the voluntary retirement but none of the option has been provided to him. It is stated that the deceased died on 16.05.2005 while in service. Earlier an O.A. was filed, which was decided on 04.07.2008, annexure A-6 is the copy of the Judgment and direction was also given to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by a reasoned and speaking order. In view of Railway policy, the applicant is entitled to be appointed. As the respondents have illegally rejected the claim of the applicant, hence the O.A.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. and filed the Counter Reply. It has further been alleged that father of the applicant Late Gangadeen was declared medically unfit for all category vide medical certificate dated 15.03.2005 and hence he was declared invalidated and retired/settled up from service correctly on 24.03.2005 as per provisions contained in the Railway Boards letter dated 01.07.2003. It is stated that Late Gangadeen was declared medically unfit for all categories at the age of 59 years 08 months and 24 days, and it shows that only three months 07 days service remained in superannuation. All the dues were settled and paid to the widow of the deceased and the widow is also getting family pension as well as she received the terminal benefits. It is stated that Gangadeen retired on 24.03.2005 as a result of his medical incapacitation vide letter dated 15.03.2005 and later on he died on 16.05.2005 after retirement and hence the case of the applicant does not lie in the category of dying in harness. Earlier O.A. No. 390 of 2007 was filed and certain directions were given by the Tribunal in order to decide the case of the applicant and accordingly the order was passed. It is stated that the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard Mr. S.M. Ali, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. D.S. Shukla, Advocate for the respondents and perused the entire facts of the case.
5. Instant O.A. has been instituted for compassionate appointment as a consequence of the death of father of the applicant while in service. It has been alleged by the applicant that in view of medical certificates (Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3), Ganga Deen was declared medically unfit and decategorisation for all categories of service, and alternative job was not offered to him and he died while in service on 16.05.2005. The respondents alleged that at the time of death, father of the applicant had put in more than 39 years of service and his age was 59 years, 8 months and 24 days at the time of death. Admittedly, Gangadeen died on 16.05.2005. It has also been alleged by the respondents that father of the applicant was due to retire on 30.06.2005 according to date of birth i.e. 21.06.1945. It is an admitted fact that vide medical certificate dated 15.03.2005, annexure A-2 and A-3, Gangadeen was declared medically unfit as he was suffering from Cancer. Gangadeen was not in a position to work on any job and hence he was compulsorily retired on 24.03.2005, and after retirement, on 16.05.2005 he died as natural death. Hence it was only the natural death and he died after retirement whereas the applicants counsel argued that father of the applicant died while in service and he was due for retirement on 30.096.2005 and he died on 16.05.2005. It is wrong to allege that Gangadeen retired on 24.03.2005.
6. It is an admitted fact that Gangadeen died on 16.05.2005 and it is also a fact that as per the medical certificate, Gangadeen was declared as medically unfit for any job. Annexure A-2 is the medical certificate of the Doctors of the Railway and this certificate also shows that Gangadeen was medically unfit as he was suffering from Cancer. Annexure A-3 is the medical certificate of Tata Memorial Hospital dated September 30, 2004, and the deceased underwent the investigation, which showed that he was suffering from Cancer and at that time he was not fit to resume his duties. Subsequently, a medical examination was conducted by the Doctors of the Railways, and he was declared medically unfit in view of annexure A-2. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Railway Policy, in which it has been alleged that if an employee is declared medically unfit, then he may be retired compulsorily. Annexure CA-1 is the policy of the Railway. I have perused this policy of the Railways. It has been provided therein that to a person who is medically decategorised, alternative job may be offered to him. But he should be within the permissible limit of disability it has therefore been decided by the Ministry of Railways that since Railway servant who has been declared totally unfit for any alternative post even in lower medical category, he should be declared invalidated and retired from service as per procedure in force prior to coming into force of revised procedure laid down in ACS No. 77 issued under this Ministrys letter No. E (NG) I/96/RE-3/9 (2) dated 29.04.1999. On the strength of this policy, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that as Gangadeen was declared medically unfit for any job hence under this policy he was declared incapacitated and accordingly he was retired from service on 24.03.2005. It has been alleged by the applicant that the respondents are illegally alleging that Gangadeen retired from service on 24.03.2005 that he was due for retirement on 30.06.2005 but under this policy, the Railway is entitled to retire an employee who has been declared medically unfit for any of the job and the medical certificate shows that the condition of father of the applicant was not as such that he can be engaged in any of the job and the respondents were fully at liberty to retire him. It is also a fact that few months were there in his superannuation but earlier to that on 24.03.2005 he was retired. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that Gangadeen died after retirement and hence there was no justification for giving compassionate appointment to the applicant.
7. It has been alleged by the applicant that Gangadeen died in harness on 16.05.2005 while in service and it is wrong to allege that he retired on 24.03.2005. Under these circumstances, as per Railway policy, the applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment. It is an admitted that after the death of Ganga Deen, widow was paid the terminal benefits, and she is also getting the family pension, and as per Railway Policy as Ganga Deen retired earlier to his death, hence Railway is not under obligation to provide any compassionate appointment to the applicant. As per directions of the Tribunal in O.A No. 390 of 2007, the application of the applicant was decided by a reasoned and speaking order. I have perused the order annexure A-1 and I am of the opinion that application of the applicant was decided by a reasoned and speaking order and under these circumstances, as father of the applicant died after retirement hence the Railway Authorities are not under obligation to offer appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the deceased Gangadeen died on 16.05.2005 whereas he retired from service on 24.03.2005. Gangadeed died after retirement as he was declared medically unfit for doing any job and hence applicants case is not covered under the Railway policy, as relied by the respondents rather Gangadeen was retired when he was declared medically incapable under the Railway policy. O.A. lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. O.A. is dismissed. No cost.
(Justice S.C. Sharma) Member J /M.M/ 9