Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sheela vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 4 September, 2024
1
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 1336/2021
Reserved on: 28.08.2024
Pronounced on: 04.09.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Sheela W/o Late Sh. Hari Singh,
Compassionate Appointment/'D',
Aged about 50 yrs.,
2. Arun Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
Aged about 34 yrs.,
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh,
Both are R/o D-4/331, Sultan Puri, New Delhi - 86.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary, Ministry of Broadcasting,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director General, Prasar Bharti,
All India Radio,
Akashwani Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Chairman, Prasar Bharti Board,
(Broadcasting Corporation of India),
All India Radio, New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Vikrant Yadav)
2
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following reliefs:
"a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter, in the interest of justice.
(b) Directing the respondents to consider and finalize the requests of the applicant No. 1 for compassionate appointment of her son, the applicant No 2 within some stipulated period as it reveals that in terms of the order dt. 24.08.18 the applicants submitted all the requisite documents with performa accordingly the name of the applicant No. 2 had already been included in the list prepared for compassionate appointment with all other consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject in the interest of justice.
(c) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants."
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicants are as under:
2.1. The applicant No. 1 is the widow and the applicant No. 2 is the son of the deceased Govt. employee, Late Hari Singh, who was working with the respondents as Class IV employee/Sweeper and died in harness on 06.06.1997 leaving behind a family consisting 04 members. Thereafter, the applicant No.1 immediately approached the competent authority for appointment on compassionate ground for 3 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 applicant no. 2, however, the applicants were advised by the welfare officer of the respondents' department to approach the respondents after the applicant No. 2 attains the age of majority.
2.2. The applicant No. 1, as per advice of the welfare officer approached the respondents seeking compassionate appointment for her son, i.e., the applicant No. 2, who had attained the age of majority on 17.11.2004, but in vain. 2.3. The applicant No. 2 filed an application under RTI Act 2005 in the office of the respondents seeking certain information regarding his appointment on compassionate ground. He, in continuance of his earlier request, also submitted another representation followed by a reminder for appointment on compassionate ground for himself in place of his father. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No. 2 also made personal visits to the respondents with supporting documents time and again but only verbal assurance was given by the respondents that his request is under process. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant filed OA No. 2941/2018 in which the notice was issued. In the meanwhile, an order dated 24.08.2018 was issued by the respondents asking the applicants to submit 4 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 the complete details with documentary evidence, passport size photographs, death certificates including educational qualifications in respect of the applicant for inclusion of his name in the list of Candidates on compassionate ground for further consideration as per DOP&T Rules. The applicant No.2 completed the formalities and submitted all his requisite documents as required.
2.5. OA No. 2941/2018 filed by the applicants was disposed of as having been infructuous vide judgment dated 28.01.2019. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:
"2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 24.08.2018, he received a communication from the respondents where they have asked the applicant to fill a proforma and supply complete details alongwith documentary evidence etc. in the matter of the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that the concerned information has been submitted by the applicant and in view of the same, nothing remains in the OA.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that on the receipt of the representation dated 02.07.2018, the above stated information has been sought by the respondents.
4. Under the circumstances, the OA is disposed of as having become infructuous. No costs."
2.6. Learned counsel for the applicants states that this is the second round of litigation and the applicants have been pursuing their case through representations dated 06.02.2018 & 02.07.2018 followed by personal visits to know the actual status of their case. However, despite the 5 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 best efforts of the applicants, till date no action has been taken by the respondents and even the actual status of their case has not been intimated to them. Hence, the applicants have preferred the present O.A.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are suffering from financial hardships as they have no other source of income. It is also contended that the deceased Govt. employee, who died in harness, left behind him a family consisting 04 members. 3.1 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that a perusal of the records reveals that the applicants have been approaching the respondents as per the advice of the concerned officials of the respondents' department but till date there is no fruitful result despite the fact that in terms of the order dated 24.08.2018 of the respondents, the applicant No. 2 submitted the performa along with entire requisite documents by registered post on 19.12.2018.
3.2. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that it is true that the applicant No. 2 only has a right for consideration, but it has to be in a fair manner. He further submitted that it reveals from the face of the records that the whole action of the respondents for not 6 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 considering and finalizing the request of applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment, which is still pending since last so many years is biased, perverse and contrary to the very relevant rules and instructions on the subject. 3.3. Learned counsel for the applicants relies upon Para 13 (xiii) and (xiv) of the appendix to O.M. No. 43019/09/2019-Estt. (D) dated 23.08.2021 issued by the DOP&T. The said paras are reproduced below:
"xiii) The result of each round of selection should be communicated to the Applicants. The points awarded against each parameter alongwith total merit points earned, should be provided to the Applicants through email or other forms of communication.
xiv) The minutes of each meeting of the Committee including the merit points earned by each Applicant should also be placed, within a period of three weeks from the date of meeting of the Committee, in public domain on the website of the Ministry/Department/Organisation for information of all concerned."
3.4. Learned counsel for the applicants also relies upon para 9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Ors., CA No. 1477 of 1993 decided on 30.07.1998. The said para reads as under:
"9. Where the services are terminated, the status of the delinquent, as a Government servant, comes to an end and nothing further remains to be done in the matter. But if the order is passed and merely kept in the file, it would not be treated to be an order terminating services nor shall the said order be deemed to have been communicated."7
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021
4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is submitted that the Directorate General: All India Radio conducted a meeting on 10.07.2020 for considering appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of Multi Tasking Staff, Directorate General: All India Radio (Headquarters) i.e DG: AIR (Hq). The Screening Committee scrutinized 17 applications received out of 20 eligible candidates. The Committee discussed at length on the Revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Compassionate Appointment issued by Prasar Bharati vide letter No. 1/001/(5)/2018-PBRB dated 13.12.2018. The Committee also followed the DoPT OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16.01.2013 and subsequent OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 30.05.2013. 4.1. The Committee noticed that vacancy positions for the year 2018 and 2019 are 7 and 9 respectively. Accordingly, 5% vacancy for the compassionate appointment is .35 and .45 which resulted in 'Nil' vacancy for the year 2018 and 2019. Thus in order to locate one vacancy under 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota, it was decided to wait till the criteria under clause 7(9) in Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D), dated 16.03.2013 met, which states that "The small 8 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 Ministries/Departments, for the purpose of these instructions, are defined as organizations where no vacancy for compassionate appointment could be located under 5% quota for the last 3 years. Such small Ministries/Departments may add up the total of DR vacancies in Group 'C' and erstwhile Group 'D' posts (excluding technical posts) arising in each year for 3 or more preceding years and calculate 5% of vacancies with reference to the grand total of vacancies of such years, for locating one vacancy for compassionate appointment. This is subject to the condition that no compassionate appointment was/has been made by the Ministries/Departments during 3 years or number of years taken over and above 3 years for locating one vacancy under 5% quota".
4.2. Thereafter, the relative merit points of the applicants in respect of cases of DG: AIR (HQ) for Gr-C MTS were prepared on the basis of Prasar Bharati SOP dated 13.12.2018. Based on the number of vacancies for the year 2014 to 2017 and after fair and justifiable assessment of all the applications for compassionate appointment, the Committee recommended 2 (Two) applicants for Group 'C'(MTS) Pay Band - 1 (Rs. 5200-20200)+ Grade Pay Rs.
1800/- (pre-revised) post in DG : AIR(HQ). The
9
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021
recommendations of the candidates was in order of their Merit. The details of the candidates are given below:
Recommendation for the post of MTS Sl. No. Name of the applicant Year of Death (deceased employee) 1 Smt. Raj Bala (SC) 1997 2 Smt. Nandi Devi 2012 (General) 4.3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the representation of applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment was received by the directorate/respondents only on 02.07.2018. The Directorate conducted a meeting of Screening Committee on 10.07.2020 for considering 17 applications (including Sh. Arun kumar) received out of 20 eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground in MTS, DG: AIR(Hq). Based on the recommendations of Screening Committee and approval of competent authority, the 2 located vacancies under Compassionate appointment for the year 2014-17, were filled.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 In Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr.
Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the principle 10 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to its decision in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:- (i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
5.2. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the 11 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
5.3. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considering its decision in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21 and 26, held as under:-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract:
... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to 12 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in nonmanual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."
5.4. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma's (supra) was duly considered, but the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 13 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 that it did not appear that its earlier binding precedents have been taken note of in that case.
5.5. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
5.6. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the applicant No. 2 now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.
14
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 5.7. In view of above settled preposition of law, we have to examine the prayer of the applicants inter-alia to the effect that whether the respondents have considered and finalized the requests of the applicant No. 1 seeking compassionate appointment of her son, i.e., the applicant No 2 in terms of the order dated 24.08.2018. It is not in dispute that the name of the applicant No. 2 had already been included in the list prepared for compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions. It cannot be said that the case of the applicant No. 2, i.e., Mr. Arun Kumar, son of the deceased Govt. employee was never considered or put up before the Screening Committee for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The respondents have placed on record the minutes of meeting dated 20.07.2020 wherein the name of the applicant No. 2 figures at Sl. No. 13. The same is also evident from the extract of the table reproduced below: 15
Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 5.8 As per the revised policy guidelines for grant of compassionate appointment, though the name of the applicant No. 2 was considered, but he fell short of the laid down criteria amongst the persons eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. Though it may be stated that as per Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2021, upon which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants, that the result/decision of the Screening Committee and the merits thereto have to be communicated, it is also a fact that the said guidelines, no doubt, provides for a procedure to be followed. The said procedure cannot be strictly applied to the facts of the present case as they are in addition to supplement the policy of compassionate appointment. Non -communication of the same cannot be regarded as fatal. The only requirement as per the settled law is that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The applicants have been non-suited on another ground of falling short of the 16 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 laid down criteria amongst the persons eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. 5.9. Once the applicant has been communicated the minutes of meeting of the Screening Committee which took place on 10.07.2020 for consideration of the cases of compassionate appointment in respect of Multi Tasking Staff, it was within the right of the applicant No. 2 that if he was still aggrieved by the procedure as well as the criteria adopted by the respondents, either he ought to have amended the OA for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law or would have challenged the said minutes of meeting which had come to the knowledge of the applicants at the time when the respondents filed the counter reply. 5.10. Even reliance placed on decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Ors., CA No. 1477 of 1993 decided on 30.07.1998 by the learned counsel for the applicants is misplaced as the same would be relevant while dealing with the case of termination. The case of wrongful termination cannot be equated to the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that there is no infirmity on the part of the respondents in 17 Item No. 83/C-5 OA No. 1336/2021 rejecting the claim of the applicants after due consideration. The present OA is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 6.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/