Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Prasad And Anr vs U O I (Railway Department)Ors on 6 July, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR DB Civil Writ Petition No.1060/12 Ram Prasad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Date:06/07/2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Dr. Saugath Roy, for petitioners. Mr. Aslam Khan, for respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 2.8.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.462/09 dismissing the Original Application.
Petitioners have prayed for compassionate appointment. Petitioner No.1 Ram Prasad obtained voluntary retirement. He prayed for compassionate appointment for his son Ravi Kumar, petitioner No.2. Ram Prasad was retired way back w.e.f. 10.10.2001 after due approval of the competent authority. He was serving in the Railways as Shunter. Application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that employee has taken voluntary retirement. Application for compassionate appointment had been rejected vide order dated 3.6.2008. Voluntary retirement has been obtained due to family circumstances. The employee did not wait for decision of the screening committee regarding alternative employment considering his medical category. The Original Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition has been preferred.
Dr. Saugath Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, voluntary retirement was obtained due to ill-health by the petitioner. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to offer compassionate appointment. Application has been illegally dismissed by the Tribunal.
We find the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioners to be untenable. In fact, the employee has obtained voluntary retirement. He did not wait for decision of the screening committee for alternative employment considering his medical category. He was declared unfit in medical category A-1 and was found fit in medical category A-2 and A-3 with glasses and was sent for medical check up in every six months. He did not wait for alternative employment and submitted for voluntary retirement. The Tribunal has considered the instructions contained in RBE No.31/2002 and RBE No.78/2006 and come to the conclusion that case of petitioner is not covered in any of the aforesaid RBEs No.31/2002 and 78/2006. The Tribunal held thus:
10. As per para 1.2 of RBE No.31/2002 (Ann.R/2) which has been subsequently clarified vide Ministry's letter dated 10.11.2000 provide that in cases where medically decategorised employee before issue of this Ministry's letter dated 29.4.1999 had taken voluntary retirement and he had neither been absorbed in an alternative employment nor adjusted against a supernumerary post after the issue of this Ministry's letter dated 29.4.1999, the facility of allowing appointment on compassionate ground of one ward may be extended. But the case of the applicant does not fall in this category mentioned in Para 1.2 of RBE No.31/2002 and as per para-2 of RBE No.78/2006 (Ann.R/4) even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declared medically decategorised, if he so desires he may be permitted but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to a ward. As per para-3 of this RBE, the Board had earlier decided that in cases where an employee is totally incapacitated and is not in a position to contine in any post because of his medical condition, he may be allowed to opt for retirement. In such cases, request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward may be considered if the said employee chooses to retire voluntarily.
11. Thus, in view of the fact that the applicant No.1 sought voluntary retirement without waiting for the decision of the Screening Committee regarding alternative employment looking to his medical category, and if his case is considered in the light of the Railway Board's circulars issued from time to time as referred hereinabove, the applicant No.2 is not entitled to get benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
From perusal of RBE No.78/2006 we found that even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declared medically decategorised, if he so desires he may be permitted but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to a ward. Thus, application made for compassionate appointment by the petitioners was misconceived. The Original Application has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consequently, we find no ground to interfere in the writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I)J. (ARUN MISHRA)CJ. GS
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, PA