Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Anandhakumar vs D/O Post on 3 October, 2018
1 OA 1767/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench
OA/310/01767/2017
Dated 03rd day of October Two Thousand Eighteen
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. T.Jacob, Member(A)
A.Anandhakumar
S/o K.Veluchamy,
Kariyampatti BO,
Kallimandayam SO,
Dindigul District,
PIN 624 616. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep by the
Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Postmaster General,
Southern Region(TN),
Madurai 625 002.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Dindigul Division,
Dindigul 624 001. .. Respondents
By Advocte Mr.S.Nagarajan
2 OA 1767/2017
ORDER
Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A) Heard. The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To call for the records of the 3 rd respondent pertaining to his order made in No.BII/Relxn/14/Dlgs dated 10.9.2015 and the order of 1st respondent made in No.REP/36-43/2015 dated 18.11.2016 and set aside the same; consequent to,
ii) direct the respondents to confirm the service of the applicant w.e.f. 01.5.2013 as GDS in the capacity on compassionate grounds; and
iii) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant's father who was working as GDS MD/MC, Kariyampatti BO died in harness while he was in service. Thereafter, on the direction of the competent authority, he looked after the duties of GDS MD/MC at Kariyampatti BO from 01.5.2013 till 20.11.2015 and thereafter, as GDS BPM at Porulur BO from 01.12.2015 till date. It is submitted that the applicant has passed +2 standard and, therefore, he is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds to the cadre of GDS.
3. The contention of the applicant is that his application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Annexure A1 order dated 10.9.2015 on the ground that the applicant did not secure the minimum required Relative Merit Points (RMP) to warrant an appointment. Based on a request to the first and third respondents to furnish the RMP awarded to him through RTI, the same 3 OA 1767/2017 was furnished which is annexed as A2 order dated 18.7.2016 and A3 order dated 27.7.2016/01.8.2016 as per which he was awarded 37 points and 41 points respectively. It is further contended that as per the modified scheme of the Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts (Establishment Division-GDS Section) dated 17.12.2015 regarding grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to the wards of the deceased GDS, the minimum RMP was reduced from 51 points to 36 and above. As such the applicant is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per Annexures A2 and A3 details furnished by the first and third respondents. But the request of the applicant for reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment was rejected by the first respondent by Annexure A4 order dated 18.11.2016 stating that the merit points were correctly awarded as per the rulings on the subject and, therefore, his case could not be re-considered as per Directorate instructions. Aggrieved, he has filed this OA seeking the above mentioned relief.
4. The respondents have filed a reply in which it has been stated that the applicant's case for compassionate appointment had been placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee during July 2015. As per the Directorate instructions in letter dated 01.8.2011 the claims which secure more than 50 points were to be considered as "hard and deserving cases". As the applicant was awarded 37 points by the CRC, his case was considered, but not recommended. The particulars of the merit points awarded is as follows:-
4 OA 1767/2017
Sl. Attributes RMP awarded
No.
1 Number of Dependants - 2 7
2(i) Education of the dependant children - Nil 0
(ii) Marriage of the dependant daughters - Nil 0
3 Left over service - 11 yrs. 9 months, 22 days 6
4 Own house - Owns Kacha house 3
5 Own land - Own no land 5
6 Family Earnings - Rs.36000/p.a. 6
7 Discharge benefits 155096/- 10
Total 37
Hence, the merit points were correctly awarded as per the Rulings on the subject and instructions issued by the Postal Directorate, New Delhi at that time. Further, with regard to the averment that the applicant is entitled to be considered in the light of the modified scheme dated 17.12.2015, it is submitted that the revision in the merit points of various attributes for the purpose of compassionate engagement to GDS post were the threshold for "hard and deserving cases" would be 36 points in the place of existing 51 points was conveyed by Directorate in the letter dated 17.12.2015 which is after deciding the case of the applicant. Hence the RMP mentioned in the letter dated 17.12.2015 is not applicable to him. As per Directorate orders, "the revised provisions will be given effect from the date of issue of these instructions in respect of those cases considered in CRCs held after 17.12.2015. Cases already settled before 17.12.2015 need not strictly be reopened." Hence, the case of the applicant cannot be re-considered, as per Directorate instructions. In view of this, the applicant had no case and the OA accordingly deserved to be dismissed. 5 OA 1767/2017
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein he relies on the order of the DoPT dated 30.5.2017 on the subject of review of scheme for engagement of a dependant of a deceased Gramin Dak Sevak on compassionate grounds and and draws attention to para-2 thereof wherein it is stated that the scheme had been reviewed in the Directorate and it had been decided to introduce a revised scheme for compassionate engagement of an eligible dependant of deceased Gramin Dak Sevaks. Under the revised scheme, the point system had been dispensed with and the scheme had been extended to dependants of missing GDS also. It is accordingly submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider his case in terms of the revised scheme.
6. Heard both sides and perused the available materials on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is similarly placed as that of the applicants in OA 1385/2016 and the issue involved in this OA is covered by the order passed by this Tribunal in 1385/2016 dated 23.3.2018. A careful reading of the order in OA No.1385/2016 dated 23.3.2018 would show that the very same issue had been dealt with. The operative portion of the said order is extracted as under:
"4. I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the applicant's case had been rejected by the competent authority in the year 2016 on the ground that the applicant had not obtained sufficient relative merit point to qualify for appointment. Now a revised scheme has come into operation with prospective effect which also provides that cases already settled shall not be reopened. Therefore, the question of respondents being directed to re-consider the 2016 rejection of the applicant's claim in terms of the revised scheme does not arise. However, the right of the applicant to be considered again in subsequent years is not taken away. Considering the fact that the 6 OA 1767/2017 applicant's case would have been considered again in the subsequent years in terms of the points system but for the revised scheme and since the revised scheme dated 30.5.2017 has been made applicable to all cases arising on or after the said date, the applicant's right to be considered in the year 2017 and 2018 would be deemed to be covered by the said order. Otherwise while wholly new claimants would be considered in terms of the revised scheme, all the previous applicants would be considered in accordance with the points system and it would be difficult to determine who deserved greater compassion in terms of the financial condition of the family. I accordingly direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for the subsequent years in terms of the revised scheme and take an appropriate decision consistent with the letter and spirit of the scheme as and when such appointments are considered.
5. OA is disposed of with the above directions. No costs."
6. The case of the applicant has been compared with that of the above case and it is seen that the OA on hand is identical to the one cited supra. Eventhough the revised guidelines came to be issued after the decision of the case of the applicant as per the previous parameters as in the case of compassionate appointment in other cases, the individual shall be considered without any limitation of time. And, the fact that the applicant has been performing the duties of GDS in two different capacities ie. GDC MC and GDS BPM for a substantial period which is to the benefit of the department cannot be lost sight of in considering his case for compassionate appointment under the revised parameters. It is not known whether the respondents are ever thrown open the vacancy (against which the applicant is functioning) to the public for being filled up and in case the applicant applies and is considred along with others obviously the experience gained by the applicant will have preference to others, other things being equal. Keeping in view the aforesaid twin aspects, mainly the case being identical with that of OA 1385/2016 and that the applicant has rich experience, the present OA 7 OA 1767/2017 is disposed of with a direction to the respondents as under:-
a. The case of the applicant shall be kept in the waiting list and shall be considered along with other pending cases and as and when his turn comes, his services would be regularised, b. As and when the process of recruitment to the post of GDS is set in motion, if the applicant applies for the same the fact of his rich experience shall be kept in view and the other things being comparable, preference would be given to the applicant.
c. The applicant shall be informed periodically about his case being considered in the CRC meetings.
7. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(T.Jacob) Member(A) 03.10.2018 /G/