Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
The Late Father Of The vs The Union Of India Through Secretary on 10 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
O.A. No. 147/2013 with MA No. 75/2013
Reserved on : 05.05.2016
Jodhpur this the 10th day of May, 2016.
CORAM
Honble Ms Praveen Mahajan, Administrative Member
Ratan Lal S/o Late Shri Heere Lal Acharya, aged about 38 years, R/o Achariyo Ka Bass, Dhani Bazar, Barmer, Rajasthan.
The late father of the applicant was working as Chowkidar in the office of respondents at Barmer.
.Applicant
(By advocate : Mr K.D. S. Charan proxy counsel for Mr. Kuldeep Mathur).
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
2. Director of Income Tax, Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes, ICADR Building, Plot No. 6, Vasant Kunj, Institutional Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110 070.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Head Quarter), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of India, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.
(By Advocate : Mr Sunil Bhandari)
...Respondents
ORDER
The applicant has filed a Misc. Application for condonation of delay in filing the OA, stating that delay is not at all intentional. In the present case, no third party rights have accrued and due to denial of the appointment, the family members of the deceased employee have been put to great crisis. Thus, the applicant is having a recurring case of action and prayed to condone the delay in filing the OA. Considered the MA No.75/2013 and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed.
2. The present application has been filed u/s 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief (s) :
(i) By an appropriate order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically and give appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father.
(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Honble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.
(iii) The Original Application may kindly be allowed in favour of the applicant with costs in the interest of justice.
3. The case of the applicant is that his father Late Shri Heere Lal Acharya died on 06.11.2002 while working on the post of Chowkidar in respondent-department. The deceased employee was sole bread earner of the family and left behind wife, three sons including the applicant and a daughter. The elder brother of the applicant is suffering from mental disorder and another brother is living separately. The applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.08.2004. The applicant is working in the respondent-department from 19.12.2002 as daily wager peon. The applicant again moved an application on 04.08.2006 for considering him for appointment on compassionate grounds and respondent-department vide their reply dated 21.03.2007 informed him of consideration of his case. But, thereafter the applicant got information that wards of other deceased employees who expired after the death of his father, have been appointed on compassionate grounds. He moved another application on 29.10.2007 citing indigence condition of his family. The applicant submitted an application under RTI Act seeking information on denial of his application for compassionate appointment. The respondents gave the same reply on 27.08.2008 mentioning no specific reason for denying the same. Meanwhile, the mother of the applicant died on 09.12.2009 due to illness. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents to deny compassionate appointment to the applicant, he filed the present OA.
4. The respondents in their reply have stated that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was referred to the Committee constituted for the purpose in the year 2007 itself and all the pending applications were duly considered by the said Committee. However, the Committee did not recommend the case of the applicant for vacancy year 2005-06 as the case of one Smt Divya Kanwar was found most deserving for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Committee considered the cases of as many as 11 candidates but the applicant was awarded only 07 marks whereas Smt. Divya Kanwar was awarded 09 marks out of 10. The marks were awarded on the basis of criteria determined by the said Committee for consideration of the cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. The DoPT vide OM dated 06.07.2012 has withdrawn the earlier O.M. dated 05.05.2003 wherein cases were required to be considered upto a period of 03 years only, from the date of death of the employee in the case of genuine and deserving candidates. In view of withdrawal of OM dated 05.05.2003, all the pending applications including the applicant, were reconsidered by the Committee. Vide its report dated 16.08.2013 the Committee did not recommend the case of the applicant as he was not eligible being non-metric and thus, the interview call letter was not sent to the applicant. The respondents have stated that vide Gazette Notification dated 17.01.2011 all Group D posts have been abolished and the post of MTS has been created which is a Group C post having minimum educational qualification 10th pass whereas the applicant is 8th pass. Thus, the respondents have denied the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. Ld. Counsel for applicant contended that the family of the deceased employee is facing great hardship and financial crisis due to untimely death. The aim and object of framing the rules for compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance and support to the deceased employee. The respondents seem to have ignored the case of the applicant for certain extraneous reasons as there is no bar in providing the compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee as rules can be relaxed with the prior approval of the Secretary to the Govt. of India. The case of the applicant is required to be considered with sympathy.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondents contended that case of the applicant was considered twice but not found deserving in view of criteria laid down. Further, the applicant lacks minimum qualification making him ineligible to be considered against the vacant post. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments of Honble Supreme Court:
(i) State of Gujarat & Ors vs Arvind Kumar T.Tiwari & Anr reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5131;
(ii) The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Revat Singh reported in 2015 AIR SCW 1229
8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The OA has been filed against the order of rejection passed by the respondents rejecting claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. The case of the applicant was considered and rejected by the respondents in the year 2007 on the ground that there were more deserving candidates in comparison to the applicant for compassionate appointment. This intimation was given to him on 27.08.2008. His case was again considered by the Committee constituted for recommending cases for compassionate appointment in August, 2013. Here, the applicant was not recommended on the ground of being ineligible being non-matric. The respondents informed that as per Gazette Notification dated 17.01.2011 all Group-D posts have been abolished and the post of MTS has been created which is a Group-C post and the minimum educational qualification for the said post is 10th pass.
9. On perusing the record, I find that when the applicant applied for compassionate appointment, he was very much eligible for being considered since he applied on 16.8.2004. Now the respondents have declared him ineligible after a period of 7 years on the ground of being a non-matriculate. Had the Department considered the applicants case more sympathetically, the case of the applicant could have been considered with leniency and compassion. Having said so, the fact remains that now he is hit by the notification dated 17.01.2011 where all Group-D posts have been abolished. Instead, the post of MTS has been created which is a Group-C post, which prescribes the minimum educational qualification as 10th pass- which the applicant does not possess. As observed by the Honble Supreme Court, it is neither desirable, nor permissible in law, to issue direction to relax the said eligibility criteria and appoint the applicant, merely on humanitarian grounds. Additionally, since the applicant is already working as Peon in the Department of Income Tax, he is somewhat better placed to take care of the needs of his family. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the respondents.
10. Accordingly, the OA being devoid of merit is dismissed. MA 75/2013 also stands disposed of as stated above. No costs.
(PRAVEEN MAHAJAN) Administrative Member R/ 2