Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Smt Dalia Dutta vs S E Railway on 3 April, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
No. OA 350/189/2015
Present: Hon'bie Ms. Manjula Das, Judicial Member
DALIA DUTTA
W/o Late Shyamal Kumar dutta
R/o Viii - Jagatbaiiavpur (Sukanta Pally)
P0 & PS - Jagatballavpur,
Dist. - Howrah
Pin -711408.
.APPLI CANT
VERSUS
Union of India,' through
The General Manager,
South Eastern Railway
Garden Reach,,
Kolkata - 700043.
Chief Personnel Officer,
South Eastern Railway
Garden Reach,
Koikata - 700043
The Seci'etary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi - 110001.
Chief Vigilance Officer,
South Eastern Railway
Garden Reach, F
Kolkata - 700043.
.RESPONDENTS.
For the applicant : Mr.B.R.Das, counsel
For the respondents: Mr.M.K.Bandyopadhyay, counsel
Heard on : 21.11.2017 Orderon:
ORDER
Per Ms. Man jula Das, Judicial Member Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.3.2009 whereby the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent authorities, the applicant approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs : .1 . 2
Rescind/recall/Withdraw the order No.P/ Staff/ CC/ High I i) Court/WPCT No. 1/2007 dated 17.3.2009 being Annexure A/i. Consider the case for compassionate appointment de novo and in adherence to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 1 of 2007 and in due consideration of the statements of the writ Ij petitioner only;
Certify that transmit the entire records and papers pertaining to the applicant's case so that after the causes shown thereof conscionable justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of reliefs as prayed for in (i) & (ii) above;
Pass such other order/orders and/or direction/directions as deemed fit and proper;
Costs.
Mr,B.R,Das, id. Counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr.M.K,Bandyopadhyay, ld. Counsel appeared for the respondents.
Shyamal Kumar Dutta, deceased employee of the Railways died at the age of 43 years on 18,10.2000 leaving behind him the applicant and their only son Sawan Dutta born on 54992. As th âp51icant did not et an pension V 1 ..'.
and retirement benefits after the, death of 'the deceased employee, she approached this Tribiinal vid'e.OA. 72/.2002.hich...was not a11wed and the applicant was directeato obtain -a decree o declarationfrom th&'Court of Law , -. -
as the widow of the deceased employee. Being 'aggrieved the applicant approached Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 1/2007 where vide order dated 20.3.2007, Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Railway authority to release the family pension in favour of Ithe writti'tio from the date of death of the employee.
4. Mr.Das, id. Counsel for the applicant forcfUlly arued,:tat despite the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondefit No.2 purportedly passed the impugned order after 2 years which iscontrary to the interest of the applicant. It was further submitted by the id. Counsel that the impugned order is a perverse, motivated and unsutainable in law in as much as in the case of compassionate appointment in so far as it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the penurious condition of the deceased family only and the in-laws have no role to play. However, according to the Id. Counsel in the instant case the respondent No.2 acted with an executive feat in rejecting the case of the compassionate appointment of the applicant on all extraneous considerations rather than making an enquiry as to the distressed condition of 3 /he family which would have otherise formed the only basis for such consideration. According to the id. Counsel the respondent No.2 has acted in .' colourable exercise of jurisdiction in not adhering to the direction of Hon'ble High Court to consider the case of the petitioner after hearing her alone and pass appropriate order within 2 months. However, without considering the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment rejected her claim which is bad, arbitrary and against all established principles of law.
5. On the other hand Mr.Bandyopadhyy, id. Counsel for the respondents submitted that Shyamal Dutta, the deceased employee, while working in the office of Vigilance, S.E.Ra.ilway, Garden Reach died in harness on 18. 10.2000 leaving behind his idov Smt. Dalia Dutta and one rriinor son. Sawan Dutta, who attained majoity in 2009: The respondeflts in para 3 o f the reply has stated that during the life tine of the deceased employee, the widow of the deceased employee has been leading.alias relation with one Athbaosh Joseph and left the residentàl ccommpdation of the deceased Railway employee. Such type of allegations haveben lodged by two brothers of the deceased employee Kamal Duttadnd.Nirrflal Dutta respectively. Simultaneously Smt. Shova Dutta, the mother of the deceased employee personally met the CPO of S.E.Railway and submitted that her son and daughtein-lawhad been .ieadig estrange relationship. It was further alleged that her daughter-in-law Dalia Dutta has been maintaining an extra marital relation. Keeping in view the pathetic condition of the minor Sawan Dutta, an unattended poor child, she has brought him up with thehelp of her husband- and daughter.
6. It was further submitted by Mr.Bandyopadhyay by referring to the statement made in para 3 of theeply that mother of the deceased employee has filed a criminal case bearing No.C-2960/ 1998 against Dalia Dutta and Ambaosh Joseph before the 8th Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It was stated in the reply by the mother of the deceased employee that her son and daughter-in-law Dalia Dutta (the applicant) had settled for a decree of divorce under Section 138 of Hindu Marriage Act. A probate case No. O.S. 3/08 is also pending before the Ld. 18th Court of Additional District Magistrate, l\ipore. /' / 4 /7. Ud. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant is drawing family pension. Subsequently in obedience to the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 20.3.2007 in WPCT 1/2007, the then CPO issued a speaking order, on 17.3.2009 rejecting the claim of Dalia Dutta by giving reasoning. It was submitted by Id. Counsel that as per the provision for giving employment assistance on compassionate ground, it is offered mainly to mitigate the financial hardship caused to the family due to the death of the bread winner in the family. The whole object in granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crisis and is not a vested right to be exercised at any point of time. The whole object is to, give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to untimely death of sole bread winner: After expiry of
1..
15 years financial hardship.dbes not remain in:the family. In viewof the facts and circumstances of the cage, the donipétert authbiity is of the viewthat it is '+ . .- .
not a fit case to offer employment-assistanceon compassionate ground to the applicant and as such the applicant's claim was rejected Heard the ld. Counsels rf6 'bthfaIieand perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
From the foregoing discussions it is found that the deceased employee / expired on 18.10.20001eaVing behind the applicant and her son Saan Dutta.
/ As the applicant did . not get-any pension and'retirement benefits after the death of the deceased employee, she approached this Tribunal vide GA 762/2002 which was nof allowed. Being aggriev sheapproached Hon'ble
-
High Court in WPCT 1/2607 where Hon'ble Hih Court vide order dated 20.32007 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Railway authority to release the family pension in favour of the applicant frOm the date of death of the employee. In pursuance of the High Court's order the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the applicant.
The son of the applicant then approached this Tribunal in OA 616/2012 for compassionate appointment where the Tribunal passed an order dated 1.5.20 14 asunder:
/ 5 "Considering the aforesaid views and observations, we are of the view that there is no merit in this case. Accordingly, OA sands dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000/- which is to be paid to the widow, the respondent No.5 for bringing her in the Court of law by her son, an unfortunate situation."
f / The scheme for compassionate appointment is to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis which occurred due to untimely death of the breadwinner, which in the present case, by now is over as assumed from the fact that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was rejected in 2009 and the present OA has been filed in 2015.
For long 6 years the applicant slept over the matter meaning thereby she was able to run the family affairs. -
it has In Umesh Kr. Nagpal -vs- State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] been held by the Hon'ble Ape Court ahereUflderJwith supplied emphasis):
"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 a member of such'familyr apost 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 suchsourceiqFthvelihood The Governmentor the public authority concerhed hds to-em xiri'ethe financial condition of the family of the deceased,..ànd 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 beofferd•o the eligible'niefnber_Of the family. T14e posts in Classes III and1V are the.15wèst ostsin .non-thanual and.man categories and henôe they alone can •be" offered on comàssioflate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency."
The Hon'ble Court also held, "Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for sucl/employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future._The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis .'hich it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -vs- Anil Badyakar [2009 (3) SL.J 205] has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
In the case of State of Manipur --vs- Md. Rafaodin [2004 (1) SLJ 2477 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be i- J claimed or offered after a lapse of time when the crisis is over. /
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hereby hold that the application is fit to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANJULA DAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER In