Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
R.S.Renjith vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 12 April, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.777/12
Friday this the 12th day of April 2013
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.S.Renjith,
S/o.late G.Radhakrishnan Nair,
residing at Abhiram, Peringamala, Kalliyoor (PO),
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 042. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Vadakara V.V.N.Menon)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Assistant Director (Rectt),
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram North Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram South Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
6. The Circle Relaxation Committee,
represented by the Chief Post Master General,
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.S.Jamal,ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 9th April 2013 this Tribunal
on 12th April 2013 delivered the following :-
O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is the second round of litigation relating to compassionate appointment. In the earlier OA No.613 of 2008, filed by the applicant, the applicant compared the financial condition of his family members with that of one Shri.Thomas Joseph and on the basis of the information furnished, it was observed that the financial conditions of the latter's family were better than that of the applicant and the latter's family was granted compassionate appointment. It was on that basis that the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the applicant and arrive at a decision and if it is found that the financial condition of the family deserves compassionate appointment, the applicant may be considered for the same. Order dated 23-09-2009 at Annexure A-23 refers. The CRC did reconsider the case of the applicant but held that according to the Committee, the applicant's family is not in a penurious condition so as to justify grant of compassionate appointment. In arriving at the said conclusion the following factors have been taken into account by the CRC:-
(a) The family owns land and house.
(b) Mother of the applicant is employed and will earn
income till 2016.
(c) The widow receives two family pensions besides her
own income; and
(d) the children are grown up and no indigence found in
the family.
2. The applicant has challenged the rejection order at Annexure A-24 on various ground and prayed for the following reliefs :-
1. Declare that the applicant is eligible and entitled to get the appointment under the 2nd respondent at least to the post of Post Man/Group D or any other eligible post under the compassionate appointment scheme.
2. Direct the respondents to issue an order of appointment to the applicant, and post him at least as a Post Man/Group D or any other eligible post under compassionate appointment scheme.
3. Quash/set aside Annexure A-24 illegal order passed by the incompetent 3rd respondent without authority and also ignore any order, if any, illegally passed by the Circle Relaxation Committee/6th respondent.
4. Grant such other further reliefs that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this application.
3. Respondents have contested the O.A. They have produced the minutes of the meeting of the CRC and also indicated in a statement the details of all the cases considered by the CRC. The fact that the annual income from other sources of the family is more than Rs 2.5 lakhs has been reflected in the statement. The family owns one house and there are no unmarried daughters for marriage. The monthly income of the mother is Rs 21,350/- and she is drawing monthly family pension as well. Though the liability is Rs. 9.47 lakhs, a part of the same was taken subsequent to the demise of the father of the applicant. Reference to a few decided cases of the Apex Court and High Court have been made to justify the decision arrived at.
4. The counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that there is absolutely no justification in rejecting the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. The liabilities were accrued during the life time of the deceased government servant and the mother of the applicant is facing retirement in 2016, when her present income would deplete considerably. Again, the house property is in possession of the Indian Bank and the immovable property does not fetch any income being only a vacant land. The respondents who had misunderstood about the fact of owning the house which is in the possession of Indian Bank had also taken into account certain loan taken subsequent to the demise of the applicant's father which in fact became inevitable in view of the financial condition of the family. It is wrong to contend that the family is in receipt of two pensions. It of course is in receipt of one pension. One of the brothers of the applicant is permanently physically handicapped and is not in a position to earn his living.
5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the family had been held to be not in indigent condition as per the norms prescribed and hence, no relief could be granted.
6. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The left over period of service of the deceased employee at the time of demise was 9 years and 7 months and the death took place in 2005. When the earlier order was passed, the fact that the mother of the applicant was employed was no doubt made known, however, the details of monthly income of the mother were not reflected in the order. The same had been considered by the respondents and the monthly salary is more than Rs 21,000/-. It is this factor coupled with the fact of having own house seems to have heavily weighed in the minds of the CRC to come to the conclusion that the family is not in indigent condition. (Though the applicant has stated that the house is in possession of the Indian Bank, there does not appear anywhere in the pleadings that the applicant and the family are residing in a rented accommodation. It is not clearly known from the documents whether the house loan was taken by the father of the applicant or his mother. Attachment order reflects the mother as the borrower. Loans taken subsequent to the demise of the deceased need not be counted as liability. It was keeping in view the above that presumably as could be seen from the minutes of the meeting as also the statement attached thereto, that there being limited number of vacancies that could be earmarked for being filled up by Compassionate appointment, it is only the most deserving candidates that have been recommended for compassionate appointment. Of those who have not been recommended, there are cases which are more deserving than the applicant. When the CRC considers dispassionately and arrive at a conclusion the Tribunal cannot direct the CRC or the respondents to act in a different fashion. The decision taken by the respondents does not reflect any arbitrariness. The OA thus, lacks merits and is therefore, dismissed. No cost.
(Dated this the 12th day of April 2013) Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN JUDICIAL MEMBER asp