Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ashish Kumar Taretia vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2015
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
CIRCUIT SITTING : GWALIOR
Original Application No.147 of 2013
Gwalior, this Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2015
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Ashish Kumar Taretia, S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Taretia,
Aged about 21 years, R/o House No.26, Gali No.1,
Tikonia Morar Gwalior 474006 - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.C. Sharma)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhaya Marg, New Delhi-110124
2. The Accountant General (A&E-I) Madhya Pradesh
Gwalior 474011 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri J.P. Saxena)
(Date of reserving the order :- 21.04.2015)
ORDER
By G.P. Singhal, AM.-
By filing this Original Application the applicant has prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. He has also sought for quashing of letters dated 30.1.2012 and 10.1.2012 (Annexure R-1 & R-2 respectively) whereby his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents.
2. The father of the applicant died in harness on 26.3.1998 and the applicant on attaining the age of 18 years applied for compassionate appointment on 12.8.2010. The case of the applicant is that the economic condition of the family of the deceased employee is very bad as there is no other source of income. Since the applicant and his sister were minor at that point of time and mother of the applicant was not educationally qualified the application for compassionate appointment was not submitted at the time of death.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently relied on the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide their OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 30th May,2013, by which various answers to frequently asked questions on the subject of compassionate appointment have been given by the Ministry, and in reply to question No.38 which stipulates that Is there any time-limit for considering a case for compassionate appointment the answer given by the DOPT is that Subject to availability of a vacancy and instructions on the subject issued by this Department, as amended from time to time, any application for compassionate appointment can be considered without any time limit subject to the merits of each case. He has, therefore, contended that since the economic condition of the family of the deceased employee is very bad as there is no other source of income, the respondents should be directed to consider his case for compassionate appointment without harping on the time limit.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
5. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the matters of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192, has considered the similar issue and relevant paragraphs of the said order read thus:
1. The petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was working as an Excise Constable. The petitioner made an application on 2-6-1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking compassionate appointment. That was rejected on 10-12-1996 as time-barred. A fresh application was filed on 26-12-1996 and that was also rejected on 21-4-1997 for the same reason. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24-8-1999 and the said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench on 10-3-2000. Against that order that this SLP has been preferred.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar1. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicants right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar2. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.
3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar2. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.
4. ...We, are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Chandra Bhushan case1.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed.
1.(1997) 1 Pat LJR 626 (Pat)
2.(1998) 5 SCC 192
6. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the aforementioned DOPTs circular is not applicable in the instant matter.
7. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the instant Original Application. The same deserves to be and is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(U.Sarathchandran) (G.P. Singhal)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
rkv
3
Sub: compassionate appointment OA 147/2013
Page 3 of 3