Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mohd. Rais S/O Mohd. Sharif vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 7 September, 2012
(RESERVED ON 24.8.2012) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 07th day of September 2012. HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2011 1. Mohd. Rais S/o Mohd. Sharif, Retired Driver (Goods), North Central Railwaya (R.S.O), Kanpur. 2. Mohd. Liak, S/o Mohd. Rais, Both R/o 42/8,Ajitganj Colony, Kanpur. Applicants VE R S U S 1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. 3. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (R.S.O.) North Central Railway, Allahabad. 4. Assistant Electrical Engineer (R.S.O.) North Central Railway, Kanpur. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri Satish Mandhyan Advocate for the Respondents : Shri P.N Rai O R D E R
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 9.11.2009 passed by Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad and also to direct the respondents to consider and decide the eligibility of the applicant NO.2 for compassionate appointment.
2. Before going into the facts of the case, it is seen that there is no order dated 09.11.2009 but there is an order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure A-8) passed by the office of D.R.M N.C. Railway, Allahabad turning down the application of applicant No.1 for appointment of applicant No.2 on compassionate basis. Hence it is taken that the impugned order that is set to be quashed is order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure A-8).
3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that applicant No.1 was appointed initially as Cleaner in the Indian Railways on 17.05.1973. He rose through various ranks till he reached the post of Electric Loco Pilot (Goods), Kanpur. He was declared medically unfit while working on the said post and without ascertaining whether he was adequately qualified, he was offered alternative job of Office Superintendent Grade II. Finding that he is unable to cope with the job requirement, being only class VIII pass, he gave an application on 11.5.2006 to grant him voluntary retirement from the service (Annexure A-1).
4. Before expiry of three months period fixed for consideration of application for voluntary retirement, applicant No.1 moved an application dated 27.7.2006 for giving compassionate appointment to applicant No.2 (his son) in terms of Circular No. E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006 dealing with compassionate appointment to the ward of persons, who are medically decategorized is provided. He received an order dated 07.08.2006 granting him voluntary retirement w.e.f, 10.08.2006. He also received another letter dated 09.08.2006 turning down his second conditional retirement letter dated 27.7.2006. The respondents chose to act upon the earlier unconditional retirement application dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure A-4) instead of acting upon the second application. Both two orders dated 07.08.2006 and 09.08.2006 were served on applicant on 11.8.2006. The applicant No.1 has moved an application dated Nil (Annexure A-6) filling up the requisite proforma for consideration of his son - applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment but this was not considered. His application for compassionate appointment was also turned down by Lok Adalat held on 10.11.2009.
5. The respondents in their counter reply have stated that applicant No.1 was medically decategorized on 20.9.2002 and was kept on supernumerary post pending locating of an alternative job, equivalent to his scale and pay. While the matter was still pending, the applicant moved an application dated 26.03.2003 (Annexure CA-1) requesting for expediting of locating of a suitable alternative job. He was given the job of Office Superintendent in the same grade but he did not join and applied for voluntary retirement vide his unconditional application dated 11.05.2006. He subsequently moved an application for his son applicant No.2. In this particular case, the applicant was decategorized in 2002 and under the Rule, he should have asked for voluntary retirement immediately he decategorized with the condition of compassionate appointment for his son i.e. applicant No.2.
6. Applicant finally retired voluntarily four years after his medically decategorization and that too unconditionally. With regard to applicants retirement as to the Railway Board Rules dated 14.06.2006, the respondents have stated that condition of compassionate appointment is applicable in those cases where the applicant is totally unfit for all categories. In terms of provision of Para 2 of said Rules provides that Even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declared medically decategorized, if he so desires he may be permitted but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to a ward (para 4 of Boards letter of even number dated 18.01.2000 refers).
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and seen the records. The most important issue to be seen here is that the applicant No.1 was medically decategorized in the year 2002 and continued thereafter on a supernumerary post. It is clear from his application dated 26.3.2003, (Annexure CA-1) that his intention was to continue in service, which is why, he had requested for expediting of his prayer for suitable alternative post. The post was ultimately located in the year 2006.
8. It is clear that he did not join in alternative post of Office Superintendent Grade II as his application for voluntary retirement was given as Loco Pilot (Goods) and it was accepted by letter dated 07.08.2006 as Electric Loco Pilot (Goods) (medically unfit). In this case, it is true that the process of accepting the request of applicant No.1 for unconditional voluntary retirement was started and the conditional retirement came rather late in the day. However, the question remains was he entitled in terms of departmental orders/circulars etc. for consideration of compassionate appointment of his ward or not.
9. A perusal of Circular dated 14.06.2006 would show that the railways effort is to keep the medically decategorized person in service and to keep him on a supernumerary post in the grade in which he was working in the regular basis, till such time suitable post can be identified or till his normal retirement whichever is earlier.
10. However, under certain circumstances, compassionate appointment to a family members of medically decategorized staff is provided in case he seeks voluntary retirement. But there are certain conditionalities. Para 4 (a) & (b) of the order dated 14.6.2006 are particularly relevant:-
4 (a) The appointment will be given to 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 be given in case of employee who are declared partially decategorized at a time when they have at least 5 years or more service
11. In view of the above, O.A. is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 10.11.2009 is quashed and case is remanded to respondents to dispose of the application for compassionate appointment for applicant NO.2 through a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the relevant scheme, rules & circulars within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The applicant No.2 will give a fresh application within 2 weeks of this order. No costs.
Member (A) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
6 O.A. NO. 19/11