Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Chandra Bhan vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 December, 2023
OA No. 330/556 of 2012
(Reserved on 11.12.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this, the 22nd day of December, 2023
Original Application No. 330/556 of 2012
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Chandrabhan, S/o Late Panna Lal, R/o Gram & Post-
Raksha, District Jhansi
2. Awadh Singh, S/o Sri Chandrabhan, R/o Gram & Post-
Raksha, District Jhansi
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.M. Ali
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad
2. General Manager, Head Quarter, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi
4. Divisional Railway Manager, (Personnel) North Central
Railway, Jhansi
......Respondents
By Advocate: Shri S.C. Mishra
ORDER
Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing of the case.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
Page 1 of 11
OA No. 330/556 of 2012 "(i) To issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure-1)
(ii) To issue order or direction to commanding the respondents to appoint the applicant No.2 on compassionate ground under Medical de-
categorization rules in the light of Circular dated 26.05.2004.
(iii) To issue award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicants is that the applicant No.1 was working as Driver Special -Gd-A and he was sent for special medical examination by the Medical Board and the Medical Board vide certificate dated 14.05.1999 declared medically unfit in A-1 and A-2 medical category for the post of Driver-A, but found fit in A-3 medical category. Accordingly, applicant No.1 appeared before the Screening Committee vide Letter dated 14.07.1999 for alternative posting as per medical category A-3, but respondents have not provided any alternative employment as per Rule 1301 and 1302 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. On 27.12.1999, the applicant No.1 made an application to Divisional Railway Manager, Jhansi demanding salary for the period of medical de- categorization i.e. from 14.05.1999 to 27.12.1999 with a copy to Divisional Electrical Engineer (T.R.O.), Jhansi. Accordingly, the respondents vide letter dated 19.01.2000 settled up the applicant No.1 instead of providing salary for the waiting period and Page 2 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 alternate job. Thereafter, the respondents released settlement dues amounting to Rs.4,68,656/- in favour of the applicant No.1 by P.P.O. The service carrier without providing alternate job or supernumerary post on his medical de-categorization has been caused financial hardship to the applicant and his family. The applicant No.1 is only 5th class pass and was not aware from the rules of the Railway regarding compassionate appointment as per medical de-categorization rules within time and as such, in the year, 2011, he came to know that one Tahir Alam, S/o Inayat Ullah Qureshi, Driver Special-A, was unfit on 10.07.1999 and declared medical de-categorized on 10.07.2000, his son was given compassionate appointment on 29.09.2006 as per Circular dated 26.05.2004. Therefore, the applicant No.1 filed representation on 20.12.2011 for employment of his son-applicant No.2 on compassionate ground, but the respondent No.4 rejected the said representation vide impugned order /letter dated 22.02.2012 on the basis of Circular dated 18.01.2000 without taking into consideration the Circular dated 26.05.2000 and also the case of the father of Tahir Alam and applicant No.1 are same and similar. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants were constrained to knock the door of this Tribunal.
4. Per contra, counter-reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the applicant No.1 was medically de- categorized on 19.07.1999 and settled up on 19.01.2000 at the age of 56 years, 03 months and 18 days. Since the applicant was Page 3 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 5th class pass, no suitable job was available and as such, he was settled up vide order dated 19.01.2000 and after the gap of 12 years, the applicant No.1 has submitted representation on 20.12.2011 for appointment on compassionate ground of his ward and as such, same was rightly rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 22.02.2012. The O.A. is filed belatedly and applicant has not filed any delay condonation application for explaining delay and wrongly interpreted with the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 for covering limitation. As per Railway Board's Letter NO.E(NG)/II//95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006, the compassionate appointment to the ward of medically de- categorized employee is to be given only in case where the employee has at least 5 years or more service left. The case of Shri Tahir Alam, S/o Shri Inayat Ullah Khan are entirely different as at the time of medical de-categorization, Shri Inayat Ullah Khan was 53 years old i.e., more than five years service was left and as such, his ward was appointed on compassionate ground in terms of Railway Boards' Letter dated 14.06.2006. Further, as per Railway Board's Letter No.E(NG)/1/96RE-3/9 (2) dated 29.04.1999, compassionate appointment to the ward of medically decategorized railway employee is not permissible. As per Railway Board's Letter No.E(NG)/II/2000/RC-1/Gen/17 dated 26.05.2004, compassionate appointment may be considered in faour of wife, eligible ward of such employee, who were medically decategorized between 29.04.1999 and 18.01.2000 and the Page 4 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 employee concerned have retired voluntarily between 29.04.1999 and 18.01.2000 (both day inclusive) such cases are personally considered and decided by the General Manager on individual merit of each case. As per Railway Board's Letter No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006, compassionate appointment to the wife/ward/dependent of partially medically decategorized staff, who seek voluntary retirement may be given with the condition that (4 a) the appointment will be given only in the eligible Group 'D' categories. Eligible would mean that in case Group 'D' recruitment is banned for any particular categories, the same would also apply for the compassionate ground appointment. (4 b) such an appointment should only be given in case of employee, who are declared partially decategorized at time when they have at least 5 years or more service left.
5. In reply, rejoinder has already been filed by the applicants, wherein it has been stated that the applicant No.1 was decategorized on 14.05.1999, whereas, Shri Inayat Ullah Quareshi was decategorized on 10.7.1999 and son of Shri Inayat Ullah Quareshi was appointed after lapse of seven years and also impugned order of 2012 and as such, the ground of limitation is not available for the respondents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant assails the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 on the ground that there Page 5 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 are six member in the family of the applicant No.1 and all were depending upon the income of applicant No.1 and due to premature retirement, the entire family have come under the financial burden. The applicant No.1 is only 5th Class pass and as such, could not file any application for providing compassionate appointment as per Medical de-categorization rules within time. The impugned order was passed in light of Circular dated 18.01.2000 without considering the Circular dated 26.05.2004. The Circular dated 18.01.2000 will not be applicable in the applicant's case because the said Circular has been amended by Circular dated 10.11.2000 as well as Circular dated 26.05.2004. The case of the applicant No.1 and father of Tahir Alam are same and similar, but the dependent of applicant No.1 was denied compassionate appointment, whereas Shri Tahir Alam was appointed on compassionate ground after lapse of seven years. The case of the applicants are fully covered by Circular dated 26.05.2004 and as such, applicant No.2 is entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules of Medical De- categorization. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sivamurthy Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2009 (120) FLR page 164, wherein it has been held that medical unfit employee heirs compassionate appointment Scheme is valid and constitutional. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. reported in 2011 (1) SCC (L & S) Page Page 6 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 667, has held that 'if the employee not asked for alternate job after medical de-categorzation, his one legal heir will be entitled for compassionate ground appointment under medical de- categorization rules.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also filed written statement /argument on 13.12.2023, wherein he has stated that the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicants for grant of compassionate appointment under medical de-categorization Rules in light of R.B.E. dated 18.01.2000 and 2006. However, the said R.B.E letters have already been amended by subsequent R.B.E. No.193 of 2000 dated 10.11.2000 with the cut of date 29.04.1999. The Railway Board further issued R.B.E. No.106 of 2004 dated 26.05.2004, the cut of date was extended 29.04.1999 to 18.01.2000 for medical de-categorized employees, such cases are to be considered and decided personally by the General Manager on individual merit of each cases for appointment of ward of medical de-categorized employee. The applicant No.1 was medically unfit on 14.05.1999 and voluntary retired by order dated 19.10.2000 without offering any job. Therefore, the case of the applicants are fully covered with the Circular dated 10.11.2000 and 26.05.2004. Further, it has been stated that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide its order dated 20.05.2016 passed in W.P. No.20068/2011 (Hemraj Vs. Union of India), has held that (Circular dated 27.12.1983-V) provided that if he has less than 3 years of service at the time of de-categorization personal approval Page 7 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 of General Manager is to be obtained before the compassionate appointment is made and the Hon'ble Court issued mandamus to the respondents to issue an appointment letter on compassionate grounds as per Rules.
9. Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the case of the applicant is not covered under the Compassionate Appointment Rules and no appointment can be made dehors the Rules. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The applicant No.1 was medically de-categorized on 19.07.1999 and settled up on 19.01.2000 at the age of 56 years, 03 months and 18 days and after the gap of 12 years, the applicant No.1 has submitted representation on 20.12.2011 for appointment on compassionate ground of his ward and as such, same was rightly rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 22.02.2012. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. As per Railway Board's Letter NO.E(NG)/II//95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006, the compassionate appointment to the ward of medically de-categorized employee is to be given only in case where the employee has at least 5 years or more service left. The case of Shri Tahir Alam, S/o Shri Inayat Ullah Khan are entirely different as at the time of medically de-categorized, Shri Inayat Ullah Khan was 53 years old i.e., more than five years service Page 8 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 was left and as such, his ward was appointed on compassionate ground in terms of Railway Boards' Letter dated 14.06.2006.
10. Mr. S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents also filed written statement/argument, wherein he has stated that the applicant No.2 is not covered under the compassionate ground appointment Rules. In view of the specific law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Manipur Vs. Mohd. Rajaodin, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511, the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service only to alleviate the distress of the family and at a belated stage, these grounds are not more in existence the employment cannot be given.
11. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records, it appears that the applicant No.1 was admittedly de-categorized on 14.05.1999 and voluntary retired by order dated 19.01.2000 without offer of any job and at that point of time, the applicants have not applied for employment on compassionate ground. It is only in the year, 2011 i.e. on 20.12.2011, applicant No.1 represented before the respondents for employment of his son on compassionate ground and at that point of time, Circulars dated 26.05.2004, relied by the applicant and Circular dated 14.06.2006, relied by the respondents, were in existence and covers the case of the Page 9 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 applicants. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant para of aforesaid Circulars, relied by the parties, which reads as under:-
Circular/RBE No.106/2004 dated 26.05.2004
2. Staff side have represented vide item No.11/2004 in the DC-JCM held in March, 2004 that in many of the cases, though the employees were medically decategorized between the period 29.04.1999 and 18.01.2000 and sought voluntary retirement on medical decategorisation but were retired after 18.12.2000, the cases for appointment on compassionate ground of such employees have not been considered by the Railway Administration, which is not justified.
3. The matter has been considered by the Board and it has been decided that further to Board's letter under reference, compassionate ground appointment may also be considered in favour of wife/eligible wards of such of the employees who were medically decategorized between the period 29.04.1999 and 18.01.2000 and sought voluntary retirement on medical decategorisation but were retired after 18.01.2000. Such cases are to be considered and decided personally by the General Manager on individual merits of each case.
Circular /RBE No.78/2006, dated 14.06.2006
4. Pursuant to the demand raised by staff side, the issue has been deliberated upon at length in the full Board Meeting and it has been decided that compassionate ground appointment to the wife/ wards/dependents of partially medically de-categorized staff who seeks voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following provisions:-
(a) The appointment will be given only in the eligible Group 'D' categories. 'Eligible' would mean that in case Group 'D' recruitment is banned for any particular category, the same would also apply for the compassionate ground appointments.
(b) Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorized at a time when they have at least 5 years of more service left.
(c) xxx xxx xxx
12. From perusal of the aforesaid Circulars, it is crystal clear that only those cases will be eligible for appointment on Page 10 of 11 OA No. 330/556 of 2012 compassionate ground, who satisfy the conditions of both the Circulars at the time of medical de-categorization. Admittedly, in the present O.A., the applicant No.1 was having less than 5 years of service left at the time of medical decategorization contrary to the condition of subsequent circular and as such, rightly the compassionate appointment to his ward has been denied although he satisfies the conditions of the first Circular quoted above. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is of no help to them as it deals with different issues.
The case of Shri Tahir Alam, S/o Shri Inayat Ullah Khan are entirely different as at the time of medically de-categorized, Shri Inayat Ullah Khan was 53 years old i.e., more than five years service was left and as such, he satisfied the conditions of both the Circulars mentioned above, his ward was appointed on compassionate ground in terms of Railway Boards' Letter dated 14.06.2006.
13. In view of the above discussions, no interference is warranted in the instant case as there is no merit in the instant case and as such, O.A. is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, instant O.A. stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) Member(Administrative) PM/ Page 11 of 11