Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

C Lokesh vs Posts on 19 March, 2024

1 OA No.3 10/00483/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00483/2023

Dated this Tuesday, the 19" day of March, Two Thousand Twenty
Four

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER

C. Lokesh,

S/o Late S. Chokkalingam,

No.3 Gandhinagar,

Kambar Street,

Moovarasampetti, Chennai. . Applicant

By Advocate M/s P.R. Satyanarayanan

Vs.

1.Union of India
rep by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

2.Postmaster General,
Chennai City Region,
Chennai.
3.5r. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City Central Division,
Chennai. .. Respondents

By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamodaran

MAS



2 OA No.310/00483/2023

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

" to call for the records relating to proceeding No.B2/B3/CRC/RRR/VolII/2020 dated 25.01.2021 passed by the third respondent which has been confirmed by the first respondent by impugned order No.REP/32-16/2014 dated 28.04.2023 conveying the fact that the request of the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds would not be considered again and quash them as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and wumreasonable and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment under compassionate grounds on his merit in the forthcoming Circle Relaxation Committee meetings and appoint him in any suitable post in any unit under compassionate ground and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant's father, S. Chokkalingam, was employed as Group D at Mylapore HPO in Chennai City Central Postal Division and passed away suddenly on 29.11.2007 due to prolonged illness at the age of 52. He had around 8 years of service left. After his father's death, the family, consisting of his widowed mother and two minor children including the applicant, faced financial hardship. Since his mother was illiterate, no one was able to seek compassionate appointment immediately after the father's tea ti el iietie ah He heel eee 3 OA No.310/00483/2023 death, When the applicant reached adulthood, his mother submitted a request on 16.07.2011 for compassionate appointment for the applicant. The applicant's request was processed, and he was awarded 73 Relative Merit Points based on the guidelines at that time. However, in an order dated 29.02.2016, the 3rd respondent informed the applicant that his request for compassionate appointment as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) was not recommended by the CRC 2015 due to a lack of vacancies, but it . would be considered for the next CRC. Subsequently, his case was considered for the vacancy year 2016-17 by the CRC 2019, and in an order dated 25.01.2021, the 3rd respondent informed the applicant that his request for compassionate grounds was not recommended. The applicant was also informed that his case would not be considered again, as confirmed by the proceedings dated 28.04.2023 by the Ist respondent. The applicant states that he remains unemployed, and the family relies entirely on the family pension received by his mother, living in extreme poverty.

Therefore, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that according to Circular No.17-1/2022-SPG-II, dated 23.03.2022, a case should be considered three times by the CRC (Central Review Committee) in a row. If the case is not recommended in the third consideration, it should be rejected. Past applications not previously rejected and not considered three times should be reviewed again until three considerations are completed.

The applicant's case was only considered twice by the CRC, in 2015 and for the 2016-2017 vacancy year in 2019. The counsel argued that the applicant's case should be considered for the third time as per this circular. Additionally, the counsel mentioned that the applicant was awarded a 73 RMPS (Relative Merit Points System) according to guidelines. They argued that the family's financial condition should be determined based on the conditions at the time of the father's death on 29.1 1.2007, as reiterated by various Department of Post circulars. The counsel pleaded that the applicant is entitled to due consideration in the upcoming CRC and requested relief accordingly.

4, Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that according to the compassionate appointment scheme, applicants must meet the minimum educational qualifications for the posts they are being considered for. The applicant's educational qualification was 6th standard, which did not meet the requirement for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant or Postman Cadres, where a Higher Secondary course (+2) was needed. The minimum required qualification for the Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) was SSLC pass, yet the applicant was considered for MTS Trainee position due to the compassionate appointment scheme, contingent upon vacancies being available.

en Ge.

_ aepenpebigieettes Ltueebieermig.

vy Agee 0 TT ae aie Tomes ay ao .

5. The learned counsel fixrther stated that the applicant's case was one of 984 in CRC 2015 and one of 995 in CRC 2019. All cases were considered equally based on Relative Merit Points (RMP) derived from various factors. Applicants with higher RMPs were considered for employment under compassionate appointment, with a limit of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies in the respective cadre. The applicant's case was handled according to the existing rules and instructions. In the CRC for the 2016-2017 vacancy year, where the applicant's case was last considered, 32 candidates were selected while 959 were rejected. The RMPs of the latest selected candidates were:

: Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant: 83 RMP

- Postman: 70 RMP * Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS): 78 RMP Despite the applicant having 73 RM Ps, he was not eligible for Postman Cadre due to lacking the required educational qualification. The learned counsel argued that the applicant could not assert that he should have been selected as MTS with 73 RMPs, as the candidates selected for MTS had RMPs up to 78. Therefore, he pleaded for dismissal of the OA.

6. Heard Mr. P. R. Satyanarayanan, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. G. Dhamodaran, the learned counsel for the respondents 6 OA No.310/00483/2023 and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.

7, The facis are not in dispute. It is seen that the Department of Posts had issued a Circular dated 23.03.2022, in respect of Review of Relative Merit Points and Procedure for selection in the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. The relevant portion of the Circular which is necessary for the case is extracted as hereunder:

"3. Rejection of case: Each case should be considered three time continuously in a row and if a case is not recommended in thir consideration depending upon RMPs of the case, the CRC which is considering the case third time, shall reject the case. Past applications which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and have not been considered 3 times by CRCs, shall be considered again (till completion of 3. times consideration) where CRC shall categorically recommend any of the remarks:

(a) Recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds (b} Not recommended for appointment due to paucity of vacancies in current year. To be considered by next CRC,

(c) Rejected"

It is seen that the applicant's case has been considered only twice so far by the CRCs, conducted in the year 2015 and 2020 and he could not be appointed only for want of vacancy. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant's case was not considered for the 3" time, as per the above said Circular. _ It is also evident from the Annexure to A-11, one candidate who has secured only RMP 70 was recommended for MTS Trainee, In the instant case, the applicant who has = on ligtlS ese ewe van aoe nonin Set ule eee, 7 OA No.310/00483/2023 secured RMP 73 is in a better position to be considered by the CRC to the post of MTS Trainee.

8. In view of the fact that the applicant's case has not been considered 3™ time, as per the Circular dated 23.03.2022 and also due to the fact that a candidate who has secured RMP 70 has been recommended for MTS Trainee, I am of the considered opinion, justice will be met. suffice it to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant objectively in the next CRC for the post of MTS Trainee, as he is qualified only 6"

standard and pass an appropriate order, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The OA is disposed of on the abové terms. No order as to costs.

j §