Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dharmendra Kumar Son Of Late Ram Swaroop ... vs Gobardhan Sao & Ors.-2002 (2) Jt Sc 349 on 4 July, 2012
(OPEN COURT) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 04th day of JULY 2012. HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 850 OF 2012 Dharmendra Kumar son of Late Ram Swaroop R/o Dhaurra Mafi, Post Office Quarsi, District Aligarh. Applicants VE R S U S 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, New Delhi. 2. Director of Printing, B-Wing Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Director (A-1), B-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Manager, Government of India Press, Aligarh. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri Anubhav Chandra Advocate for the Respondents : O R D E R
Heard Shri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Applicant has sought admission of his O.A. against the impugned order dated 22.07.2009 by which his name for consideration under compassionate appointment is deleted from the list of wait listed candidates.
3. The applicant has averred that his father Ram Swaroop died in harness on 29.05.1989. Thereafter his mother, widow of deceased, applied for compassionate appointment and she was called for interview on 07.09.1989 and 09.04.1991. Her name was thereafter placed on the list of wait listed candidates at Sl. No. 39. The applicant was a minor at the time of death of father and on attaining majority, he filed an application for consideration of compassionate appointment. Applicant as well as his mother had filed O.A. No. 2895/03 before C.A.T Principal Bench, New Delhi in which the O.A. was dismissed by its order dated 10.11.2004. It was also observed that the case of the applicant cannot be considered out of turn and the seniority of the mother of the applicant cannot be given to the applicant. He should be given seniority from the date he attained majority. The case of the applicant continued on the departmental wait list of such candidates. Finally, due to departmental decision, impugned order dated 22.7.2009 was passed by the respondents deleting his name from the waiting list.
4. In this case, there is a delay of about four years between passing of the impugned order dated 22.7.2009 and filing of the case i.e. on 31.5.2012. The applicant has also filed Delay Condonation Application under section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in which the main defence are that applicant is a poor person and could not approach the Tribunal well within time to challenge the order dated 22.7.2009. The applicant is an unemployed person and is looking after her old age mother and lastly as the impugned order is in English, he could not understand the order reading and promptly. He has also cited the following case law:-
(a) Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors.-2002 (2) JT SC 349.
(b) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy JT 1998 (6) SC 242.
5. The material observations in both cited decisions was that section 5 of C.P.C, which determines the limitation cannot be a mindless and heartless interpretation of mere dates but the intervening period should be viewed in a liberal manner so that aims of substantial justice are not defeated.
6. I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the file. It is useful here to look at the various pronouncements made by the Honble Apex Court. In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265. The Honble Apex Court on page 268, Honble Supreme Court has held following observation:-
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis As was observed in State of Haryana V. Rani Devi it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occuring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulation or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 Further Honble Supreme Court in its decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 718, has held as under:-
10. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration.
7. As per above cited decisions of Honble Supreme Court, it is held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of fundamental right. As understand under section 14 of Constitution. It is a special consideration given to members of family who have been put to stand crisis due to untimely demise of bread-earner. The compassionate appointment is a mechanism to give immediate relief and cannot be a matter of recruitment and/or to single out one poor family from million of poor family in the country. Moreover, compassionate appointment is to be given within the frame work of the departmental approved scheme.
8. In this particular case, there is a delay of about 4 years between passing of impugned order dated 22.07.2009 and filing of the case. The grounds taken of either poverty and/or lack of knowledge of English to understand the order do not find any merit in this case specially as with all these handicaps the applicant by his own admission had filed various applications before the Respondents as also filed an earlier O.A. before C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi.
9. The grounds taken are very general in nature and certainly do not explain the delay. O.A. is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.
Member (A) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
5