Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sanjay Kumar vs Sail on 25 November, 2021
1 O.A./051/00136/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
OA/051/00136/2021
CORAM
HON'BLE SHRI M.C.VERMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
DATE OF ORDER: 25.11.2021.
Registration No. OA /0051/00136/2021
Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Prem Nath Ram, Qr No. DD-454, At & P.O.--
Bhawanathpur Township, P.S.-Bhawanathpur,
P.S. Bhawanathpur, District
District- Garhwa--
8222129 (Jharkhand)
............Applicant
By advocate : Shri Naresh Pd. Singh and Shri Arvind Kumar Singh
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd New Delhi, through its Chairman
Chairman--
cum Managing Director, SAIL, Head office Ispat Bhawan, Lodi
Road New Delhi-110003.
2. The Deputy General Manager (P& (P&A),
A), Steel Authority of India
Ltd, Raw Materials Division, Industry House, 10, Camac Street,
Kolkata-700017.
3. The Deputy General Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India
Ltd, Raw Materials Division, At & PO Bhawanathpur Township,
PS-Bhawanathpur District- Garhwa
Garhwa-822129 (Jharkhand).
4. The Sr. Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India Ltd, Raw
Materials Division, Personnel Department, At & PO PO--
Bhawanathpur Township, P.s. Bhawanthpur
Bhawanthpur-District-Garhwa--
822129 (Jharkhand).
..........Respondents
By Advocate : Shri V.K. Dubey
Dub
ORDER (ORAL)
Per M.C. Verma, Member (Judl.)
1. The OA is at notice stage hearing. Having received advance copy of the OA, Shri V.K. Dubey Advocate has appeared for respondents. Heard.
2. Applicant's did not advance any submission orally but has filed lengthy hy written notes of arguments, contained in twelve 2 O.A./051/00136/2021 sheets of paper. Written notes of arguments have also been filed from respondent's ondent's side and their counsel did advance oral submission to supplement the written notes.
3. Considered the submissions.. Factual details of case of applicant, as has emerged from the pleading in OA & written notes of arguments are that father of the applicant applicant, while was in service,, died on 14.09.1998 and after death of his father name of his father was struck off from the P Pay ay Rolls of Company on 22/10/1998.That after death of applicant's father, applicant's mother applied for appointment of Lawajee, elder brother of applicant, on compassionate ground and said elder brother of him, filed writ petition CWJC No. 44208 of 2000 for his appointment on compassionate ground. That CWJC No. 4208 of 2000 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, on 03.01.2003, with directions to the authorities of SAIL to consider the case of the applicant's brother for appointment on compassionate ssionate ground within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the said order. The SAIL Authorities did challenge this order dated 03.01.2003 by filing an appeal but their appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court. That during pendency of above said writ petition the authorities of SAIL, on 02/05/ 2001 had issued a Circular to follow the priority and seriatim in 3 O.A./051/00136/2021 providing compassionate appointment in certain cases of death of its employees.
4. It is further ther case of applicant that when claim of appointment on compassionate ground of his brother was rejected by respondents on 04/06.11.2003 2003 his brother challenged ed aforesaid rejection order in writ petition petition, bearing W.P.[S] No. 1636 of 2004 before the Hon'ble on'ble Jharkhand High Court but this writ petition of his brother was rejected by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, vide ide its order dated 11/01/2012, holding that after such a long time the court cannot direct to appoint the dependent on compassionate ground.
5. Further case of applicant is that in June 2011, mother of the applicant, with consent and approval of SAIL Authorities Authorities,, nominated the applicant [Sanjay Kumar] Kumar],, in place of his elder brother [Lawjee],, for appointment on compassionate ground.
6. That applicant licant came to know that some similarly situated dependents, ts, including Ramkumar Singh & Ranjeet Kumar, whose father had died 20-22 22 years ago had been appointed on compassionate ground, he, on 11.09.2016, gave another request/representation for his appointm appointment ent on compassionate ground and also gave undertaking that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms on which appointment has been given to Ramkumar Singh & to Ranjeet Kumar.
Kumar.That applicant pplicant thereafter 4 O.A./051/00136/2021 has also given several representation representations but he has nott been given appointment.
7. in written notes of arguments It has been contended by applicant that as a family arrangeme arrangement and also with the consent and approval of the concerned authorities he was nominated for appointment intment on compassionate ground in place of his elder brother, Mr. Lawajee Lawajee, and thus he is standing in the shoes of his of elder brother brother. That hat instant case is glaring example of the malafide misrepresentation/ deliberate deception and undue & illegal discrimination done by the respondents nts relating to the compassionate appointm appointment ent of the applicant's brother.That That case of the applicant is a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground as per policy of the SAIL.
8. Further contention of applicant in Written notes of arguments is that in first writ petition on of brother of the applicant a detailed,, reasoned and speaking order order, relying upon Balbir Kaur's case {(2000) 6 SCC 493} 493}, was passed by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and the he Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court did direct the SAIL authorities ities to consider the case of the applicant's brother for compassionate appointment and hereafter respondents on extraneous considerations expressed their inability to offer appo appointment intment on compassionate ground and rejected the claim of the 5 O.A./051/00136/2021 applicant's brother.
her. The applicant's, brother thereafter filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid rejection order which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Court. That this dismissal of this writ petition of applicant's brother was because of misrepresentation by respondents and said misrepresentation/fraud was not properly considered and rather the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself and therefore the Order dated 11/01/2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court is a nullity in the eyes of law. That at principle of finality of litigation cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity.
9. Regarding parity it is the contention of applicant tthat hat in year 2017 another Bench of Hon'ble High Court did direct appointment of similarly situated persons, name namely Ramkumar kumar Singh & Ranjeet Kumar whose father had died22/20year ago. That document Annexure A/5 reveals that 51 persons had been appointed so far on compassionate ground.
10.In written note applicant also has quoted several decisions, delivered by Hon'ble Supreme upreme Court or by High Courts or by Bench of the Tribunal and it has been contended that ratio descend of said decisions lend support to his plea that his case is fit for compassionate appointment.
11.Learned counsel Shri V.K. Dubey, Advocate for responden respondents,, vehemently opposed the O.A and urged that decision dated 11/01/2012 /01/2012 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court passed in W.P.[S] .[S] 6 O.A./051/00136/2021 No. 1636 of 2004 (second writ petition of brother of the applicant) has finalized the fate of compassionate appointment in this case, that said order has attained finality and if applicant is in shoes of his brother he has to abide by said decision and he cannot be given appointment. He also rebutted the contention that said aid judgment is a nullity or was procured playing fraud. He also submitted that the case of the applicant is suffering from delay, latches acquiescence and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
12.Considered the submission. W.P.[S] No. 1636 of 2004 ( second writ rit petition of brother of the applicant) wherein rejection order dated 06.11.2003 was assailed, was dismissed on the ground that the family of the deceased employee has survived since death of the employees concerned, hence after such a long time, the court ourt cannot direct to appoint the dependent on compassionate ground.. Though contention of applicant is that this dismissal was because of misrepresentation by respondents and said misrepresentation/fraud was not properly considered and rather the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself and therefore the Order dated 11/01/2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court is a nullity but we do not find this submission holding any water and thus we are unable to accept the same.
7 O.A./051/00136/2021
13.Father of applicant died on 14/9/1998 and orde orderr by Hon'ble High Court was passed on 11/01/2012 and till after death more than 13 years had passed. The principle of finality of litigation cannot be ignored in this case. For appointment of applicant, request as per applicant's case was made in year 2011, 11, meant to say after about 13 years of death of applicant's father and if it is counted from today demise of applicant's father took place about 23 years ago.
14.The OA is against the principle of finality of litigation and is devoid of merit as well and therefore herefore deserve deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed at this stage of notice hearing itself. Pending MA, if there is any also stand disposed of accordingly [ Sunil Kumar Sinha ] [ M.C. Verma ] Member (A) Member (J) Mks.
8 O.A./051/00136/2021 ZZZZZ CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI Registration No. OA /0051/139/2021 CORAM HON'BLE SHRI M.C.VERMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) DATE OF ORDER: 25.11.2021.
1. Om Prakash S/o late Bikram Yadav @ Vikram yadav, village village--
Jangaliya, Ward No.15, Near Unique School, P.O., Ps. & District-Gopalganj, Pin-841428 841428 (Bihar).
............Applicant By advocate : Shri Naresh Pd. Singh and Shri Arvind Kumar Singh Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd New Delhi, through its Chairman Chairman--
cum Managing Director, SAIL, Head office Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road New Delhi-110003.
2. The Deputy General Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India Ltd, Raw Materials Division, Industry House, 10 Camac Street, Kolkata-700017.
3. The Deputy General Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India Ltd, Raw Materials Division, At & PO Bhawanathpur Township, PS-Bhawanathpur District- Garhwa Garhwa-822129 (Jharkhand).
4. The Sr. Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India Ltd, Raw Materials Division, Personnel Department, At & PO PO-- Bhawanathpur Township, P.s. Bhawanthpur Bhawanthpur-District-Garhwa-- 822129 (Jharkhand).
..........Respondents By Advocate : Shri V.K. Dubey ORDER (ORAL) Per M.C. Verma, Member (Judl.) :-
9 O.A./051/00136/2021
1. The OA is at notice stage hearing.
earing. Having received advance copy of the OA, Shri V.K. Dubey, and Advocate has appeared for respondents. Heard.
2. Applicant's did not advance any submission orally but has filed lengthy written notes of arguments, contained in eleven sheets of paper. Mutates tates mutandis it has been contended in written notes of arguments that instant case is glaring example of the malafide misrepresentation/deliberate deception and undue & illegal discrimination done by the respondents relating to the compassionate appoint appointment ment of the applicant.
That case of the applicant is a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground as per policy of the SAIL but it was rejected arbitrarily on 10/06/2011 citing that scheme was not at all applicable to his case. That father of the ap applicant plicant while was in service died on 16.09.2013 and after death of his father name of his father was struck off from the Pay Rolls of Company on 06/03/2010.That after death of applicant's father, applicant's mother applied for appointment of applicant on compassionate ground but her request was turned down arbitrarily, vide referred order dated 10/06/2011. That after rejection of case of the applicant's appointment, a protest petition for cryptic rejection of his case was filed by the applicant. That Parliamentary rliamentary committee of Lok Sabha, on 13/8/2013 took a serious view of the discriminatory and 10 O.A./051/00136/2021 harassing attitude of Sail Authority and directed to ensure uniform set of standard rule. That applicant did try to gather information and gave several represent representation ation from year 2011 to year 2017 for his compassionate appointment. That in April 2018 applicant came to know that respondents have appointed some more persons, including one junior so he gave another request/representation, on 07.07.2018, for his appointment ment on compassionate ground but his said representation is still pending decision. It is also the plea of applicant that by citing Medical Invalidation Scheme, the scheme which was/is not at all applicable to the case of the applicant respondents arbitra arbitrarily rily denied to appoint the applicant and this itself is the glaring example of the arbitrariness and the intentional malafide discrimination. That the applicant is not at all to be blamed or questioned for the alleged delay as he is approaching this Hon'bl Hon'ble e Tribunal on renewal of the cause of action as his juniors in accrual of claim have been appointed.
3. In written note applicant also has quoted several decisions, delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court or by High Courts or by Bench of the Tribunal and has conte contended nded that ratio decendi of said decisions lend support to his plea that his case is fit for compassionate appointment. Factual aspect viz. date of death of father of the applicant, request for appointment & its 11 O.A./051/00136/2021 rejection on 10/06/2011 and subsequent repre representation sentation etc. are found fortified by the pleading in OA.
4. Shri V.K. Dubey, Advocate for respondents vehemently did oppose the O.A and placed on record judgment dated 28th August 2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand and urged that the case of applicant plicant is squarely covered by the this judgment and applicant cannot be given appointment. He also submitted that the case of the applicant is suffering from delay & latches and therefore also OA deserves to be dismissed.
5. Considered the submission. Text o off Order dated 31/3/2014, whereby mother of the applicant was informed about rejection of her request for appointment of applicant reads reads:- "-------------
-------------
----to to be typed from page 44, Annexure A/4 A/4-------------------------
-------------------------
--------" . It is evident that the ccase ase of applicant was not the case of appointment covered by Medical Invalidation Scheme.
6. Taking note of note of totality of facts and circumstances emerged from pleading and submissions, we are of considered view that it would be appropriate to dispose of this OA, at this stage of notice hearing, without any comment on merit of the case but with direction to the respondents to consider and take decision on representation dated 07.07.2018 (Annexure (Annexure-6 6 of OA) of the applicant at the earliest possible but lates latestt within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
12 O.A./051/00136/2021
7. With aforesaid direction OA stand disposed of. Pending M.A., if there is any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
[Sunil Kumar Sinha ] [ M.C. Verma ]
Member (A) Member (J)
Mks.
OA No.33/2021, 136/2021, 137/2021, 138/2021 & 139/2021 All aforesaid five matters are at notice stage hearing, were heard together on last date. Ld. counsel for applicant as well as ld counsel for respondents did file written argument and made submission. In all above O.A submissions has been made by way of written argument. Nothing has to be supplemented by them. Having gone through the written argument and the pleadings made by the respective OA we did find that O.A .No.33/2021 and O.A 139/2021 are on different footing and hence separate orders shall be passed in separate O.A and therefore separate orders are there. The facts in O.A No. 136/2021, 137/2021 and 138/2021 are almost identical and hence hen common order has been passed in separate sheets in OA 136/2021, 137/2021 and 138/2021. All three O.As has been dismissed. Copy of order passed in 136/2021 is common order hence a copy of this order be placed in O.A 137/2021 and 138/2021. OA No.33/202 No.33/2021 Present Shri Naresh Prasad Singh with Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for applicant Shri V.K. Dubey, ld counsel for respondents.
13 O.A./051/00136/2021 This O.A was heard and disposed of vide order of even date, dictated and passed in this O.A. (Sunil Kumar Sinha) M/A (M.C. Verma) M/J OA No.139/2021 Present Shri Naresh Prasad Singh with Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for applicant Shri V.K. Dubey, ld counsel for respondents. This O.A was heard and disposed of vide order of even date, dictated and passed pass in this O.A. (Sunil Kumar Sinha) M/A (M.C. Verma) M/J 14 O.A./051/00136/2021 OA No.33/2021, 136/2021, 137/2021, 138/2021 & 139/2021 All aforesaid five matters are at notice stage hearing, were heard together on last date. Ld. counsel for applicant as well as ld counsel for respondents did file written argument and made submission. In all above O.A submissions has been made by way of written argument. Nothing has to be supplemented by them. Having gone through the written argument and the pleadings made by the respective OA we did find that O.A .No.33/2021 and O.A 139/2021 are on different footing and hence separate orders shall be passed in separate O.A and therefore separate orders are there. The facts in O.A No. 136/2021, 137/2021 aand nd 138/2021 are almost identical and hence common order has been passed in separate sheets in OA 136/2021, 137/2021 and 138/2021. All three O.As has been dismissed. Copy of order passed in 136/2021 is common order hence a copy of this order be placed in O.A 137/2021 and 138/2021. OA No.33/2021 Present Shri Naresh Prasad Singh with Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for applicant Shri V.K. Dubey, ld counsel for respondents. This O.A was heard and disposed of vide order of even date, dictated and passed pass in this O.A. (Sunil Kumar Sinha) M/A (M.C. Verma) M/J 15 O.A./051/00136/2021 OA No.139/2021 Present Shri Naresh Prasad Singh with Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for applicant Shri V.K. Dubey, ld counsel for respondents. This O.A was heard and disposed of vide order of even date, dictated and passed in this O.A. (Sunil Kumar Sinha) M/A (M.C. Verma) M/J