Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Asha Mishra And Anr. In Writ ... on 25 July, 2012
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 25th day of July 2012. HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 895 OF 2010. Ashok Kumar Gupta, son of Late Madan Mohan Gupta, R/o Nagar Panchayat Maghar, In front of Girls Basic School, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Applicant VE R S U S 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Urban Development, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Superintending Engineer, Samanvay Parimandal (Civil), Central Public Works Department, New Delhi. 3. Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Kendriya Bhawan 3rd Floor, Aliganj, Lucknow. 4. Superintending Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Allahabad Central Circle, Allahabad. 5. Deputy Director (Administration), C.A.C, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri B.M Shukla Shri P.S. Pandey Advocate for the Respondents : Shri R.K. Srivastava Reserved on 05.07.2012 O R D E R
The Applicant/Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has filed this O.A. under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking quashing of order dated 23.03.2010 passed by respondent No.3.
2. The brief case is that the applicants father died in harness leaving behind him his widow, Smt. Kalawati Devi, two unmarried daughter Km. Anita Gupta and Km. Sudha Gupta and two sons i.e. Manoj Kumar Gupta and the applicant. The applicants father died after serving 34 years, 8 months and 5 days on 20.11.1999. Initially an application was moved by his mother on 10.12.1999 (Annexure A-2) seeking appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the applicant. Respondent No. 3 sought some particulars from the applicant by their letter dated 25.2.2000. This was replied to by the applicant that further formalities were completed between 31.07.2000. However, the applicant was not given any appointment. He sought to know his position by his letter dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure A-5). He was informed that he is placed at Sl. No. 108 in the waiting list for applicant for compassionate appointment. Yet on a second occasion by letter dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure A-7), he was informed that his position in the waiting list has been further revised to 113 from 108 earlier on and proposal for appointment of first ten cases have been issued, whereafter by the impugned order dated 23.3.2010, he was informed that as per guidelines issued by Department of Personnel and Training vide their O.M No.14014/19/2002/Estt. (D) dated 05.05.2003, his case was considered for 3 years within 5% quota kept aside for recruitment under compassionate ground. As three years have passed, his case has been terminated.
3. The respondents have failed to understand how his position in the waiting list for compassionate appointee can be pushed from 108 to 113 and secondly in view of judgment of Honble High Court given in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, why his case has been terminated on completion of three years when clear cut direction in the writ petition was that considering the precarious situation of the applicant, three years is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. In their counter reply, the respondents have stated that the case of the applicant was considered for 3 years. They have placed reliance on DOPT Circular No. 14014/19/2002- Estt (D) dated 5.5.2003 (Annexure CA -4).
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the file. It has been held time and again though various pronouncement of the Honble Apex Court that compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with Departmental Scheme, which would no doubt lay down the parameters for assessing comparative claims for compassionate appointment based on level of distress. Honble High Court, Allahabad in the case Union of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Mishra and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010 has held that the dropping of the case of three years even though in accordance with guidelines of DOPT Circular dated 5.5.2003 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
6. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. Respondents are directed to keep the case of the applicant for consideration of appointment under 5% quota of compassionate appointment in accordance with Departmental Scheme. No costs.
Member (A) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
3 O.A. NO. 895/10