Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Veni vs M/O Labour on 19 April, 2022
1 OA 1170/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1170/2017
Dated Tuesday the 19th day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MS. L ATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.Veni,
No.13, Santhiagappar Street,
Kempstown,
Trichy 620 001 ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s R.Jayaprakash
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour & Employment
Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Competent Authority,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India, Head Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066.
3.The Regional P.F.Commissioner I,
Coimbatore Region, Sub-Regional Office,
Coimbatore.
4.The Regional P.F.Commissioner II,
Sub-Regional Office, Trichy. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V.Vijay Shankar
2 OA 1170/2017
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in No.TN/RO/CBE/Adm/A(5)/CAT/OA 501/2017 dated 16.06.2017 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the applicant on compassionate ground."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant is as follows:
The applicant's father Late A.Selvaraj joined the services of the respondents on 16.08.1983 and thereafter substantively appointed as a Sweeper on 01.04.1988. While working as a Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), the applicant's father died on 30.06.2011 leaving behind his wife and two daughters as his dependents. After the applicant's marriage she has has changed her name in the official Gazette on 22.05.2013 and thereafter the marriage of her younger sister was performed. However though applicant was married she is taking care of her old aged mother who is a diabetic patient and partially deaf and not able to go outside for work and she is totally dependent upon the applicant. The applicant who is the elder daughter submitted an application dated 26.11.2012 requesting for compassionate appointment. Her application was scrutinized by the respondent authorities who directed her to submit the requisite documents and the same were duly submitted by the applicant. By order dated 12.06.2013 the respondents have rejected her request for compassionate appointment on the ground that it can be given only to the dependent family member. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant has filed OA 1412/2013 challenging the same before this Tribunal. 3 OA 1170/2017
However, the said OA came to be dismissed, vide order dated 05.02.2015. Against the said order of dismissal the applicant has preferred WP No.6796/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and subsequently the same has been withdrawn on 16.03.2015.
3. The applicant has again made a request to the respondent authority to consider her case for grant of compassionate appointment as she is the only caretaker of her old aged mother who is suffering from diabetics and partially deaf and not in a position to go outside to earn for her bread and butter. Against her request a detailed enquiry was conducted by the 4 th respondent and a report was sent to the 3rd respondent, vide letter dated 20/21.11.2014 by recommending the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment. In spite of the said recommendation, since the respondent authority have not communicated any reply regarding her appointment, the applicant filed OA 501/2015 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, by order dated 15.04.2015 without going into the merits of the case, directed the 2nd respondent therein to consider the proposal sent by the 4th respondent with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter the respondents have time and again sought for extension of time on four occasions by filing MA 693/2015, MA 303/2016, MA 617/2016 & MA 826/2016 for implementing the order in OA 501/2015 dated 15.04.2015. Finally on 16.06.2017, the respondents have passed an order rejecting the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicant was married and not dependent on Late A.Selvaraj, the deceased employee of the respondents. The said order has been impugned by the applicant in the present OA.
4. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their 4 OA 1170/2017 counter and opposed the relief claimed by the applicant on the ground that as per instructions of DOPT, i.e., a married daughter cannot be considered for compassionate appointment but subject to the following conditions:-
"(i) that she was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds.
(ii) She must support other dependent members of the family."
As the applicant is not a dependent of the deceased employee at the time of his death since she is married, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment and therefore the respondents have rightly rejected her claim for compassionate appointment.
5. Heard both sides and perused the OA as well as the records related to the case and the authorities cited by the applicant. It is to be noted that after a detailed enquiry, the 4th respondent vide letter dated 20/21.11.2014, has resubmitted the proposal of compassionate appointment in compliance with the directions of the Head Office. The relevant paras in the said report are extracted as under:-
"3. Smt.S.Pattammal, wife of Late Shri A.Selvaraj, MTS has submitted in her representation dated 26.11.2012 & 24.01.2013 as follows:
(i) Due to sudden demise of her husband A.Selvaraj, MTS on 30.06.2011, she is managing her family with financial assistance received in the form of Family Pension, since the death benefits received have been utilized to settle the outstanding loans left over by her husband.
(ii) Further, Smt.S.Pattammal has stated that at present she is 52 years old and a diabetic patient, partially deaf and can't go to outside work.
(iii) There is no male legal heir in the family. Smt.S.Veni, elder daughter who is married is taking care of all her family needs.
For the above reasons, Smt.S.Pattammal, wife of (Late) Shri A.Selvaraj, MTS has recommended her elder daughter, Smt.S.Veni aged 34 years, 7 months and married, for considering compassionate appointment in EPFO in order to have a decent livelihood.
8.Hence, the family is in necessity of a permanent financial support. I, therefore, feel that offering an appointment to Smt.S.Veni, daughter of (Late) Shri A.Selvaraj, MTS, Trichy on compassionate grounds alone can facilitate the family to have a decent living. Her appointment will be an apt support to the family of the deceased employee.
5 OA 1170/2017
9.Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal for compassionate appointment in r/o. Smt. S.Veni, daughter of (Late) Shri A.Selvaraj, MTS may be considered favourably. The following documents along with enclosures are forwarded herewith for favour of information.
(i)Representation letter of Smt.S.Pattammal
(ii)Shri P.Subbiah, Enforcement Officer dated 17.04.2013
(iii)Resume submitted by Smt.S.Veni, daughter of (Late) Shri A.Selvaraj, MTS, Trichy."
It is clear from the said report that after a detailed enquiry, it has been noted by the 4th respondent that the applicant's mother is a 52 year old diabetic patient, partially deaf and cannot go to outside work and the applicant who is married is taking care of all her family needs. The family is in indigent condition and needs permanent financial support and hence recommended the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment. It is also to be noted that this Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 13 of OA 245/2013 dated 31.08.2014 has held as follows:
"13.It is seen that in the scheme of the Railways, a married daughter is not excluded from consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, provided she is the bread winner of the family. Such cases have to be considered at the level of the General Manager. However, the respondents have stated that the Master Circular No.16 postulates compassionate appointment only to eligible ward of the widow of the deceased employee, that in this case, the married daughter was not the dependent of the late employee after her marriage which was subsisting and that she was not an eligible ward in as much as she was not the dependent of the late employee. Essentially, what has to be seen is whether the married daughter (2nd Applicant) was living with her mother (1st Applicant) and, after her marriage, was being supported by her mother. This needs verification."
The respondents have failed to appreciate the object behind giving compassionate appointment as an immediate financial assistance to indigent families who may not be in a position to fulfil the requirement of bread and butter after the death of the 'kartha' of the family. After the death of the applicant's father in the year 2011, being the unemployed elder daughter who was taking care of her ailing mother, the applicant made an application 6 OA 1170/2017 for compassionate appointment in the year 2012. But the respondents have rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that married daughters are not dependents. Also it is to be noted that in spite of the recommendation dated 20/21.11.2014, the competent authority has not looked into the report and rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
6. In view of the above facts, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 16.06.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders.
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 19.04.2022 MT