Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Amla R vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 28 January, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A No. 476 of 2012 This the 28th day of January 2013 C O R A M HON'BLE Mrs.K.NOORJEHAN,ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Amla R., Aramam, KRA/A 40, Kuravankonam Market Junction, Kowdiar P.O, Trivandrum-695 003., Applicant.
(By Advocate Dr. K.P.Satheesan) Vs 1 Union of India represented by the Secretary, Indian Audit & Accounts Department,New Delhi - 110001. 2 The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Trivandrum. 3 The Accountants Officer (Administration), O/o Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, Trivandrum - 695 039.
Respondents.
(By Advocate M/s Iyer & Iyer, Mr.Vineeth) (The Application having been heard on 21.1.2013. the Tribunal delivered the following) O R D E R HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN , ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is aggrieved by the non-consideration and rejection of her request for compassionate appointment. 2 The applicant is the younger daughter of late S,Radhamani, who died on 17.5.2010 while working as Accounts Officer under the 2nd respondent leaving behind her husband and two daughters. The elder sister of the applicant is employed in a Bank at Thrissur and is staying separately. The applicant is residing at Trivandrum alongwith her father. It is stated that the only source of income in the family was the salary of the deceased employee and on the untimely death of her mother the family was finding it very difficult to survive as there is no other income for the family except the family pension. It is submitted that the applicant requested for compassionate appointment on 11.6.2010. In response to her representation the applicant was informed that her request was rejected by the departmental screening committee constituted for the purpose on the ground that out of the three surviving members of the family two are earning. It is averred that the applicant in her representation specifically stated that she and her father do not have any income. The elder sister is employed in a Bank and is residing separately. Their residential building is constructed by availing loan from the department. The Chit transaction with KSFE amounting to more than rupees fifteen lakhs is to be repaid in the next five years. All the ornaments of her deceased mother was pledged for funeral and other expenses. Therefore, the family is in dire need of an employment assistance. She argued that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on ground that the family has received final terminal benefits and one of the members of the family is employed gainfully. In deserving cases even where there is an earning member in the family of the deceased, compassionate appointment may be considered depending on the financial condition of the family. In this case the family is indebted for a considerable amount by way of loan, chit, etc. Thus the rejection of the request of the applicant without assigning any reason is arbitrary and illegal. 3 Respondents have contested the OA. It is denied by the respondents that the request of the applicants for compassionate appointment was rejected without assigning reasons. They submitted that as per the instructions of the Government of India, only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means can be appointed on compassionate grounds. They further averred that the applications received for compassionate appointment were considered in the light of the instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel & Training and orders/instructions received from the Headquarters (C&AG), by a Committee constituted for the purpose. It is averred that all the requests are verified through the Welfare Officer and the Screening Committee scrutinises each and every case based on such reports. It is submitted that immediately after the death of her mother, an amount of Rs.25,00,882/- was released as death gratuity, GPF, Leave Encashment and CGEGIS. In addition to this the family is in receipt of family pension of Rs.13805/- plus Dearness Relief from 18.5.2010. They further submitted that the Headquarters of the respondent department set out a criteria while considering the cases for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, a monetary ceiling of terminal benefit is fixed as Rs.14 lakh for Group-B, Rs.9 lakh for Group-C and Rs.6 lakh for Group D to evaluate the financial condition of the family to arrive at the decision to grant compassionate appointment. The Committee considered all the aspects of the applicant including the extent of terminal benefits the family of the deceased received which exceeded the monetary limit of Rs.14 lakh, also the fact that out of the three surviving members, viz., husband and two daughters, two are earning. In view of the fact that the compassionate appointment is primarily meant for providing assistance to the family of the deceased Govt servant so as to tide over the immediate financial crisis, the Committee concluded that the family does not require assistance by way of compassionate appointment. Therefore the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was turned down by the respondents keeping in view the financial condition of the family, the settled legal position and instructions issued from time time on the subject. The respondents cited the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to affirm their plea that right to compassionate appointment is neither a fundamental nor a vested right:
i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana JT 1994(3) SC 525
ii) Himachal Road Transport Corpn. Vs Dinesh Kumar JT 1996(5) SC 319
iii) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Smt Radhika Thirumalai JT 1996(9) SC 197
iv) State of Haryana & Ors Vs Ram Devi & Ors, JT 1996(6) SC 646
4 Rejoinder was filed to controvert the objection raised by the respondents. The applicant contended that out of Rs.25 lakh paid as pensionery benefits, the GPF amount to the tune of Rs.10,83,162/- and Rs.315,586/- as leave encashment paid to the family of the deceased Govt servant is the savings of the ex-employee during her life time and it can not be termed as pensionary benefit.
5 The applicant has moved M.A 59/13 to accept additional document. The M.A is allowed and the document is taken on record. 6 The counsel for the applicant strenuously argued for consideration of the claim of the applicant under compassionate grounds since the family is heavily indebted, the applicant is unemployed and both the daughters are to be married. The family pension is not sufficient to meet both ends. However, the respondents have stated that the request of the applicant was duly considered by the Committee which has gone through all the aspects of the applicant's case including the terminal benefits exceeding the monetary limit of Rs.14 lakh fixed by the C&AG and the fact that out of the three surviving members, viz., husband and two daughters, two are earning members. Therefore the family of the applicant is not at all in a penurious condition to justify compassionate appointment. They have referred the Apex Court's judgments supra and argued that the claim of the applicant was turned down by the respondents keeping in view of the financial condition of the family and the settled legal position of the matter. 7 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 During final hearing the counsel for the applicant produced copies of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of State Bank of Travancore & anr. Vs. Aswathy, WA No.599/2010 dated 17.12.10 and Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, W. A. No. 1313/2003(B) dated 24.08.2006 to support his contention that receipt of terminal benefits cannot be treated as the sole yardstick to deny appointment under dying in harness scheme. It is seen that in both cases, the amount of terminal benefits was for Rs 2.5 lakhs against heavy liabilities. In the latter case the family spent Rs 16 lakhs as the ex-employee was suffering from kidney failure for which the treatment went on for many years and the reimbursement was for a negligible amount. The applicant here in is not similarly situated as the family received Rs.25 lakhs as terminal benefits and there are two earning members in the family. The counsel for the respondents submitted a copy of the judgement of the Hon'be Supreme Court in C.A No. 6224/2008, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr, dt. 23.5.12 wherein the Apex Court allowed the appeal as the family received terminal benefits of Rs. 4.4 lakhs.
9 In response to a direction from the Tribunal the respondents produced minutes of the Screening Committee meeting held on 4.10.2010 in which the case of the applicant was considered, alongwith others, for 3 vacancies. The Committee recommended the case of, one young widow, daughter of a Record Keeper (Grop D post earlier) and the son of an Accountant. According to the verification reports of the Welfare Officer, the the financial condition of families of the 3 dependents was pathetic and economic distress obvious.
10 The Scheme evolved by the Govt of India for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground to a family member of a Government servant dying in harness leaving behind the family in penury is to extend immediate relief to the family to face the sudden and unexpected economic hardship. In this case, the dependants are stated to be husband, the applicant and her elder sister. The elder sister of the applicant is in gainfu/l employment in a Bank and the father of the applicant is an earning member and in receipt of family pension. The Committee which scrutinised the cases approved three most deserving candidates for appointment during the year 2010. The case of the applicant and a few others were rejected in view of the fact that the compassionate appointment is primarily meant for providing assistance to the family of the deceased Govt servant so as to tide over the immediate financial crisis. They arrived at the conclusion that the case of the applicant is not one requiring assistance by way of compassionate appointment. Therefore the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was turned down by the respondents keeping in view the financial condition of the family. The whole objective of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and it is not meant to give employment to one member of such a family. 11 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, reported in JT 1994(3) SC 525, and Anil Malik Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. held as follows:-
" ........The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the Rule is justificable and valuable since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. ....... It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. "
12 The elder sister of the applicant is a Bank employee who gets her salary every month and that the father of the applicant is also earning and the family is in receipt of family pension of Rs.13805/- plus Dearness Relief. The applicant is a LLB student and hence equipped educationally to earn a livelihood for herself. So there is no way to family can now be treated as indigent to reconsider the case on merit.
13 In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the applicant has no case and this O.A devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this O.A. No costs.
Dated 28th January, 2013 K.NOORJEHAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER kkj