Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Hans Raj vs D/O Post on 12 March, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT SHIMLA
O.A.NO.063/230/2019
Reserved on: 27.02.2020
Pronounced on : 12.03.2020
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Naini Jayaseelan, Member (A)
Hans Raj S/o Late Sh. Govind Ram, aged about 37 years,
occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Khalyan, P.O. and
Tehsil Chachoyot, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
.........................Applicant
By Advocate : None
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology, New
Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, H.P. Circle, Shimla, H.P.
3. Assistant Director (Staff) Office of Chief Post Master
General, H.P. Circle, Shimla, H.P.
4. Post Master General Post Office Chachoyat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
.......................Respondents
By Advocate : Mr. Anshul Bansal
2
ORDER
By MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present OA assailing the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by Assistant Director (Staff), Office of Chief Post Master General, H.P. Circle, Shimla H.P. (Respondent No. 3) wherein the candidate's request for appointment on compassionate ground after the demise of the applicant's father late Sh. Govind Ram, Postman (GDSMD) was rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee (C.R.C.) on the plea that the applicant is residing separately and having separate parivar register.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant expired while in service on 25.05.2017, leaving behind his widow and two sons i.e. the applicant and his brother Hem Raj as per the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Mandi H.P.
3. It is the contention of the applicant's counsel that mere separation on the family register does not forfeit the legal right of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Scheme of compassionate appointment of the Department of Posts circulated vide circular No. 17- 1/2017-GDS dated 30.05.2017 is applicable only in the 3 case of dependents who are married sons living with parents and dependent for livelihood on the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on the date of death of the GDS. He further states that as per this policy, the case of the applicant was duly considered by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) and based on the Nakal Pariwar Registers dated 16.06.2017 and 23.06.2017 submitted by the applicant, it was noticed that the applicant was residing separately from the family of the deceased father and therefore, it was not a fit case to be considered for compassionate appointment. Hence, the applicant's case was rightly rejected vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018.
5. It is noticed that the present OA has been filed after more than after a lapse of period of one year from the date of issue of the impugned order. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.
6. Moreover, as per policy in circular dated 30.05.2017, it is clear that a married son living separately cannot be considered as a dependant of deceased GDS. It is evident from Nakal Pariwar Registers dated 16.06.2017 and 23.06.2017 that the applicant who is a married son, is living separately from the family of his 4 deceased father. These documents were duly taken into account while rejecting the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
7. The law settled in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583, is that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of right and the claim has to be decided expeditiously. The Court held as under :-
"6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years".
8. Similar view has been taken in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana etc. (1994) 4 SCC 138, 5 State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudana Das & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560 and Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar etc. (2000) 7 SCC 192.
9. In view of the above, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(NAINI JAYASEELAN) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated:
ND*