Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Nithyanathan vs Revenue on 28 June, 2024
1 OA No.310/00843/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00843/2021
Dated this 28th of June, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
P. Nithyananthan,
Son of A. Padmanaban (late),
Employed as MTS Trainee,
ITSC - Income Tax Settlement Commission
(Interim Board for Settlement - VII) Chennai
Residing at No.129, 54, R- Block
Kotturpuram, Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate Ms. K. Nithyashree
Vs
1.Union of India
rep by The Under Secretary
Department of Revenue,
Authority of Advance Ruling Cell,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Income Tax Settlement Commission
Interim Board for Settlement -1,
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
3 The Secretary,
Income Tax Settlement Commission
(Interim Board for Settlement - VII)
Additional Bench, Chennai. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. T. Arunan
2 OA No.310/00843/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) By this OA , the applicant is seeking the following relief:
(I) To set aside the order in F.No.A/20020/2/2011, dated 28.09.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent & to consequently appoint the applicant on regular basis with effect from his initial date of appointment in the year 2005 in contingent post and to reinstate him to the said Group D post with all consequential benefits;
(ii) to pass such further &other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant's father, A. Padmanaban, was employed at the Settlement Commission in Chennai from 1974 until his death in 2003 while in service. Following this, the applicant applied on 13.08.2003 for compassionate appointment. In response to his application, the 2 nd respondent considered his case favourably on 07.05.2010, citing the applicant's disability and existing employment at the Commission since 2005, which was the sole income source for the deceased family. Eventually, the applicant started duty on 08.09.2011, appointed on compassionate grounds by an order dated 21.09.2011. He has a 55% disability. Later, in his representation, dated 17.04.2015, the applicant requested and was granted a grade pay of Rs. 1800/- by the 3rd respondent. Despite having only a middle school education, he sought 3 OA No.310/00843/2021 relaxation in educational qualifications and was re-designated as an MTS - Group 'C' along with others. On 20.09.2019, the applicant submitted another representation highlighting his role as the sole breadwinner for his widowed mother, wife, and two daughters, and his health issues including unstable angina and skin ailments. Despite this, the 3rd respondent abruptly terminated his service on 29.09.2021. Consequently, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking to set aside the termination order and to reinstate him in Group D post, with all consequential benefits.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that consequent on the death of his father while in service, the applicant who had completed IX std. was appointed only as contingent worker on compassionate ground. According to him, the applicant should have been appointed on regular basis in a regular post. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant was offered appointment as Trainee in the Pay Band of Rs.4440- 7440 with a condition to acquire minimum educational qualification of 10th pass, as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC. It is the case of the learned counsel that as the applicant has already been appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the old Recruitment Rules, the educational qualification recommended by the VI CPC is not applicable to him.
4 OA No.310/00843/2021
4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that subsequent to the several representations made by the applicant, he was appointed as MTS in the Pay Ban of Rs.5200-20200 with the Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- w.e.f. 17.04.2015. However, the same was not given effect to and the applicant was issued with a Show-Cause Notice, dated 13.09.2019 for terminating him for non-compliance of service condition of acquiring minimum educational qualification of 10th pass, within five years of appointment, despite expiry of 7 years of service. The applicant submitted his reply on 20.09.2019. However, by an order, dated 28.09.2021, the applicant was terminated from service.
5. The learned counsel contended that impugned order of termination has been issued without considering the fact that the applicant has served under the respondents for almost 10 years as Trainee and for about 6 years on contingent basis and prior to such regular appointment and terminating him all of a sudden is arbitrary and unreasonable. She also assailed the impugned order of termination as arbitrary and illegal, since the applicant was appointed in the year 2005 itself when old Recruitment Rules for Group D post was in vogue. As per the old Recruitment Rules, the required educational qualification is Middle Standard Pass which the applicant possess. Hence, the order of termination is unreasonable and violative of his rights under Article 14, 16 and 300A of the Constitution. 5 OA No.310/00843/2021
6. She contended that the respondents have failed to consider the request of the applicant for giving relaxation in educational qualification taking into account the fact that he is handicapped with 55% disability, having nervous disability and the age factor and the sudden termination is left without means of livelihood. Hence she prayed for the relief in the OA.
7. Per contra ,the learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the reply statement submitted that as per the offer of appointment, the applicant should have acquired the minimum educational qualification for the post i.e., 10th pass within a period of 5 years from the date of his appointment (A-7). He further contended that during the 5th year that is in the year 2016, attempts were made by office to encourage the applicant to complete the minimum educational qualification of 10 th standard, staff members volunteered themselves to coach him and he was advised to contact an educational institute also. But the applicant was not sincere enough in getting through the examination and never listened to the efforts made by the office to help him.
8. He further contended that the applicant Trainee was issued a show cause notice (A-15) as to why his services should not be terminated for 6 OA No.310/00843/2021 non-compliance of the condition of the appointment vide Office Memo, dated 13.09.2019. as per procedure laid down in the DoPT OM, dated 16.01.2013. He also submitted that the decision to terminate the applicant was taken in consultation with the DOPT in reference to para 17 of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment issued by the DopT OM, dated 16.01.2013. As there is no provision for waiver of requirement on acquisition of minimum educational qualification for appointment on compassionate ground within five years, in case, the Trainee fails to acquire the minimum educational qualification within the specified period, there is no other option but to terminate the service of the Trainee. Since, the applicant himself has accepted that he could not comply the condition, the respondents have passed the impugned order on 28.09.2021 terminating the applicant from service (A-18). Thus, he submitted that the impugned order is perfect and pleaded for sustainable of the same.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. K. Nithyashree and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. M.T. Arunan, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
10. It is an admitted fact that consequent on the death of applicant's father on 21.04.2003, while in service, the applicant submitted a 7 OA No.310/00843/2021 representation, dated 13.08.2003, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. At that time, the applicant had completed IX std. According to the respondents, the applicant was appointed on contingent basis from August, 2007 and not from the year 2005, as claimed by the applicant. By the order dated 07.09.2011, the applicant was offered appointment in the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai, as Trainee, in the Pay Band of Rs.4440-7440, without any Grade Pay with certain conditions. One of the condition is to the effect that the applicant will be given the regular Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- only on acquiring the minimum prescribed educational qualification of 10th Pass, as stipulated in the Model Recruitment Rules for Group C Posts (pre-revised Group D posts), as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. It is also seen that though the cut off date for acquiring the qualification was fixed as 08.09.2016, considering his health conditions, the applicant was given time till 13.09.2016. However, he has failed to acquire the said qualification. The applicant himself has stated in his reply, dated 20.09.2019, to the Show Cause notice issued to him, that he was unable to get through the 10 th examination, which is the minimum qualification required for the post of MTS. Hence he sought for relaxation in educational qualification. 8 OA No.310/00843/2021
11. With regard to the order, dated 17.04.2015, relied upon by the applicant, it is seen that the order was not given effect to due to the objection raised by the Field Pay Unit in the competency of granting Grade Pay. Further, as there is no provision for waiver of requirement of minimum educational qualification for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment issued by the DoPT OM, dated 16.01.2013, the decision to terminate the services of the applicant was taken, in consultation with the DoPT. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination order was passed by the respondents.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the relief sought by him. On the other hand, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of termination, since he has failed to acquire the required minimum qualification, inspite of sufficient opportunity given to him to be appointed as MTS on regular basis.
13. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(J)
mas 28 .06.2024
9 OA No.310/00843/2021