Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Kumar Son Of Late Shri Pala Ram vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 17 July, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.NO. 208/CH/2012 Date of order:- July 17, 2012. Coram: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) Surinder Kumar son of late Shri Pala Ram, Sweeper, O/o the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, resident of House No.1106, Ram Darbar, Phase I Colony, Chandigarh. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. J.R.Syal ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi-110001. 2. Union Territory, Chandigarh through Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh. 3. Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh. 4. Regional Employment Officer, Regional Employment Exchange, U.T. Chandigarh. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. H.S.Sullar) O R D E R. Honble Mrs.Promilla Issar, Member (A):
The applicant has filed the present O.A praying for the following reliefs:-
i) that the relevant record may kindly called for to ascertain as to whether 5% vacancies meant for compassionate appointment in the cadre of Constables have rightly been calculated by clubbing Group `C and `D posts in the Respondent department;
ii) that the decision of the respondent No.3 in arriving at a conclusion that the applicant do not fulfill the eligibility condition for the post of Constable, without conveying the reasons of rejection, referring the case to the Respondent no.4 for giving compassionate appointment in any other department of the Chandigarh Administration, as conveyed vide memo No.17.8.2011 may be quashed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant for the post of Constable in the department of Respondent no.3, strictly against the vacancies meant for direct recruitment quota in the department, in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme for compassionate appointment.
2. It is the projected case of the applicant that his father was appointed as Sweeper on 5.1.1980 in the office of respondent No.3. He died on 3.8.2009, leaving behind the applicant as the only legal heir as his mother had pre-deceased his father on 1.8.2008. The applicant being the only legal heir, approached the office of respondent no.3 requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the applicant was recommended by the Departmental Common Committee on Compassionate Appointments constituted for the purpose, after assessing his suitability. The applicant made a request to Respondent no.3 for considering him for the post of Constable but respondent no.3 has intimated vide memo dated 17.8.2011, addressed to Regional Employment Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, that the applicant, along with others recommended by the Committee for appointment to Group `C or `D posts does not fulfill the eligibility conditions for the post of Constable. Since vacancies in Group `C or `D under 5% quota on compassionate grounds were not available in the department, a request was made to give compassionate appointment to the applicant in any other department of Chandigarh Administration. The applicant has also alleged that in the year 2009, 5% vacancies were available in the cadre of Constables and the applicant could have been adjusted against one of these vacancies in view of the fact that he fulfills the requisite qualifications meant for the post. Hence the present O.A.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement in which they have stated that the father of the applicant died on 3.8.2009 due to illness. After his death, the applicant applied for the post of Constable on compassionate grounds vide his application dated 2.9.2009. As per Chandigarh Administration policy guidelines, the case of the applicant was placed before the Departmental Common Committee on Compassionate Appointments (for short `DCC) for considering the suitability of the applicant for compassionate appointment. The DCC, in its meeting held on 28.1.2010, found that the applicant does not fulfill the eligibility conditions of age for the post of Constable. Since he is over-age by one year and one day for the said post as on 3.8.2008 i.e. the date on which his father died. The Committee, therefore, recommended the case of the applicant for appointment against any other Group `C or `D post on compassionate grounds. They have further stated that since no vacancy was available in Group `D under 5% compassionate quota in the department, Regional Employment Officer, Chandigarh was requested to consider his case for appointment in some other department of Chandigarh Administration against a Group `C or `D post. Accordingly, Respondent No.3, vide letter dated 15.2.2010, intimated that the name of the applicant had been registered in the common seniority list at sr.no.746 and as and when his turn comes as per his position in the seniority list, his case will be considered for appointment. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. The applicant has filed the rejoinder generally reiterating the averments made in the O.A. He has also argued that the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds provides for relaxation in the upper age limit and the respondents should have consider this provision and given him relaxation in age while considering his case for appointment as Constable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. The respondents have stated in their reply that the applicant is over-age by one year and one day, as per the eligibility conditions for the post of Constable. The learned counsel for the respondents stated at the time of final hearing that the maximum age limit for the said post is 23 years for general category candidates, 25 years for OBC candidates and 28 years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. In addition, the department has also provided for relaxation of two years in respect of the persons being appointed on compassionate grounds. Even after giving this two years relaxation, the applicant still exceeds the maximum age limit of 30 years, which has been specifically fixed for such candidates by giving a relaxation of two years. It is, therefore, apparent that the department has already made a special provision for relaxation in age in respect of compassionate appointments and in fact such candidates have been placed at a higher footing than all the other categories of candidates. The applicant cannot have a case that relaxation in age should be given to him to the extent of making him eligible for the said post, because this would lead to a very untenable situation in which the candidates belonging to this category would demand relaxation to an unlimited extent. Therefore, I find that the stand of the respondents in this case is perfectly legal and valid, since the applicant does not fulfil the requisite qualifications even after being given relaxation of two years. Accordingly, the stand of the respondents in this respect is upheld.
7. As far as the applicants appointment against a group `D post is concerned, the respondents have stated that there is no post available in the said category under the 5% compassionate appointment quota. In response to the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that some persons have been granted appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of the applicants father, it is found that as per the information provided by the respondents, even though four persons were appointed under this quota in 2010, the date of death in all those cases was prior to the date of death of the applicants father and, therefore, their cases were considered first. For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not possible to grant any relief to the applicant under these circumstances. The applicant has no responsibilities since he was the only heir of the deceased and there was no other family member that he had to support when the father of the applicant died. It is also seen that the applicant was about 31 years of age when his father died, had no responsibilities and cannot be said to have been entirely dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his death.
8. The Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 that the whole object of granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to protect the family of the deceased from financial destitution. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis.
9. For all the reasons mentioned above, I find that the applicant has failed to make out a case in his favour and this O.A. is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) MEMBER (A) Dated: July 17, 2012.
Kks 7 ( O.A.NO. 208/HR/2O12 ) (O.A.No.208/CH/2012) 1