Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Geeta Sharma vs The Union Of India (Through Secretary) on 18 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.820 of 2011 MA No.3 of 2011 New Delhi this the 18th day of October, 2011 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) 1. Smt. Geeta Sharma, aged about 58 years, W/o Late Shri Rakesh Bandhu Sharma, Who died in harness while serving as Senior Auditor in Gp C post in PCDA (CC) Lucknow office under CGDA, New Delhi, Ministry of Defence seeking Compassionate Appointment Sponsoring name of her son Eshant. 2. Mr. Eshant Sharma aged about 22 years, S/o Late Shri Rakesh Bandhu Sharma, Deceased Ex-Sr. Auditor from Defence Accounts Department under CGDA, New Delhi who died while posted in PCDA (CC) Lucknow Office R/o C/o Shri Kapil Dogra, 212, Subhash Puri, Kanker Khera, Meerut Cantt. .... Applicants ( By Advocate Shri V.P.S. Tyagi ) VERSUS 1. The Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry of Defence, South Block-New Delhi. 2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Marg Palam, Delhi Cantt. 3. The Pr. CDA (CC) Cariappa Road, Lucknow Cantt. 226002. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri Amit Anand ) O R D E R
Feeling aggrieved of denial of appointment on compassionate ground to first applicants son upon death of her husband in 5.9.2006, the applicants have filed the present Application seeking direction to re-consider the applicants request for compassionate appointment. Vide speaking order dated 12.11.2007 as at Annexure A-4, the respondents declined to accept the applicants request for a compassionate appointment for the reason that the applicant did not fulfill the indigency criteria and there was no vacancy available for appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant has filed a representation dated 21.7.2009 stating the reasons with reference to which it was claimed that the case was not considered properly.
2. Opposing the applicants claim, the respondents in their counter reply have stated that the applicant No.1s son got only 35 points as evaluated by the Board of Officers at 100 points scale based on parameters prescribed in the Government orders on the subject.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the applicant No.1s son did not fulfill the indigency criteria, the question of referring the case of her son for re-consideration at its subsequent meeting would not arise. This point has not been controverted by the applicants counsel. However, the applicants counsel urged that the applicants representation dated 21.7.2009 has not been given any consideration by the respondents. At least, direction can be given to the respondents to consider and decide this representation but this is not the relief claimed by the applicant in this Application. The respondents counsel submitted that the applicants representations have been considered twice and were rejected by the respondents on merits. In this regard, he referred to the respondents communications dated 4.8.2008 and 4-2/3-2009 at Annexure A-6 and A-2 respectively. This is in addition to the impugned speaking order dated 12.11.2007 as at Annexure A-4.
4. Apart from this, the applicants counsel could not produce any plausible justification for demanding reconsideration of the applicants request for compassionate ground de hors the Scheme for such appointment.
5. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and submissions of both the parties, no case for grant of relief as claimed in the OA has been made out. The Application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/