Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dated This The 14Th Day Of March vs The Commissioner on 14 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 808/2009
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011
C O R A M
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Rakesh D
S/o. (late) Dharmalingam Ramaswamy
Selvi Nivas, 3/632
Mele Murali, Industrial Estate (P.O)
Puduppariyaram, Palakkad.
2 R. Vasanthamani
W/o. (late) R. Dharmalingam
Mele Murali, Industrial Estate (P.O)
Puduppariyaram, Palakkad . ..... Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. P.V. Mohanan)
Vs
1 The Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise
Customs and Service Tax
Central Revenue Building
I.S. Press Road, Cochin .... Respondent
(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
The Application having been heard on 16.2.2011, the Tribunal delivered
the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicants are the son and widow of late Dharmalingam Ramaswmy who died in harness on 22.11.2006 while working as Havildar in the office of Central Excise, Palakkad. The deceased is survived by widow, two sons and one daughter. The daughter is married and the elder son suffer from oncological disease and is dependent on the second applicant. The second applicant submitted application for compassionate appointment on 5.1.2007 (A-1). He also submitted an application through the Member of Parliament which was recommended and forwarded to the respondent (A-2). Since no action was taken, the 1st and 2nd applicants submitted separate applications (A-3, A-4 & A5). Since no steps have been taken, they filed this O.A for appointment of the 1st applicant on compassionate grounds either to a Group-C or Group-D post. 2 The respondents filed reply statement contending that the scheme of compassionate appointment envisages certain conditions, only 5% of the direct recruit vacancies in Group-C/Group-D is earmarked for compassionate appointment. The 1st applicant was considered for three years from the date of death of the employee on 22.11.2006. A total of 5 vacancies arose during the period which have been filled up by giving appointment to the most deserving applicants. The concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family and appointment is offered on need cum economic status basis. They further stated that 22 applications are still pending with the Department and that no vacancy is available for compassionate ground appointment.
3 The applicant filed rejoinder stating that the mother of the 1st applicant gets a family pension of Rs. 3900/-, they do not have landed property except a small house in five cents of land, the elder brother of the 1st applicant needs chronic medical treatment. They submitted that no proper enqiry was conducted on the financial condition of the applicants. They further submitted that vacancies are available both in Group-C and D posts. They also stated that the vacancies are not properly assessed.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records produced before us.
5 The main contention of the applicants is that the respondent has not considered the applications submitted by the applicants nor did they prepare a list of eligible candidates depending on the degree of poverty and destitution. They asserted that there are vacancies available both in Group-C and D posts. 6 The respondent on the other hand contended that verification of the financial condition of the family etc. was carried out on 8.2.2007 and that the name of the applicant was included in the list of applicants to be considered for compassionate appointment for three years during 2007, 2008 and 2009. The learned counsel for the respondents produced the minutes of the Committee for our perusal. The application received from 66 family members of the ex- employees were tabulated in the first instance showing the number of dependents, assets, liabilities, etc. The applicant is eligible for only a Group-D post. The only one vacancy in Group-D was granted to Kumari Nisha K.S. daughter of late K.P. Sudhakaran, Senior Deckhand. His wife is a heart patient, two dependent daughter are of marriageable age and pension is the only source of income. In two other meetings also his case could not be considered as there were more discerning candidates and due to lack of vacancy in Group-D cadre. They also furnished comparative statement of applicants prepared in this regard. The applicant is placed at Sl. No. 33. In short, in the meeting of the Committee of officers for consideration of applications for appointment on compassionate ground held on various dates and that though the applicant was included in the list he could not be appointed because of his lower ranking and availability of limited posts for appointment under compassionate grounds. 7 In this view of the matter, we hold that the applicant has been considered under the compassionate appointment for three years as envisaged in the scheme and his case could not be approved because of his lower ranking and the facts that limited posts are earmarked for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed. No costs.
Dated 14th March, 2011 DR. K.B.SURESH K. NOORJEHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER kmn