Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sanjay Kumar Nayak vs D/O Post on 10 July, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O. A. No. 260002752013
Cuttack, this the 10th day of July,2018
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI, MEMBER (A)
.......
Sanjay Kumar Nayak, aged about 32 years, S/o-Late Surendra Kumar Nayak, At-
Kaintol, P.O-Gorada, Dist-Jagatsinghpur.
...Applicant
(By the Advocate-M/s. J. K. Rath, D. N. Rath, P. K. Rout, S. N. Rath)
-VERSUS-
Union of India Represented through
1. Secretary, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda.
3. Senior Superintendent, R.M.S.(N) Division, Cuttack-753001.
...Respondents
By the Advocate- (Mr. S. K. Singh)
ORDER
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A):
The applicant has filed this O.A under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 praying for a direction to the respondent No.2 to reconsider his case for Compassionate Appointment.
2. The Applicant's father was working as a Sorting Assistant (BCR) in the Head Record Office, RMS(North Division, Cuttack) and expired on 17.06.2003. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal through O.A No. 231/2007 and O.A No. 177/2010. The present O.A is the 3rd round of litigation. It basically covers the rejection of applicant's case through Annexure-A/15 and A/16 which read as follows:
Annexure-A/15:
"To Sanjay Kuamr Nayak, S/o-Late Surendra Kumar Nayak, Ex-SA, HRO N Division Cuttack, At: Kaintol, PO: Gorada, Via: Tirtol, Dist-Jagatsingpur.
Sub: Compassionate appointment in relaxation of normal recruitment rules Disposal of cases by the CRC held on 14.01.2013.-2-
It is to intimate that the CRC held on 14.01.2013 regarding compassionate appointment in relaxation of normal recruitment rules at circle office, Bhubaneswar. The CRC examined your case taking into consideration the points earned by you as per Directorate letter No. 37-36/2004-SPB- I/C dated 20.01.2010 and found that you didn't come within the Zone of vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment in MTS cadre, hence the CRC did not approve your case.
Senior Superintendent, RMS 'N' Division, Cuttack- 753001.
Annexure-A/16:
Order This is regarding compassionate appointment case of Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak, S/o Late Surendra Kumar Nayak, Ex-SA, HRO RMS 'N' Division, Cuttack.
The ex-official passed away on 17.06.2003 while in service. After death, his son Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the applicant was considered in the CRC held on 14.11.2006 and was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not in indigent condition in comparison to selected candidates.
Being aggrieved with the decision of the CRC held on 14.11.2016, Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak filed O.A. No. 231/2007 before the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.
The Hon'ble Tribunal vide orders dated 01.05.2008 quashed the rejection order and directed the Respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar to reconsider the case of the applicant by taking into consideration the finding and law of the Apex Court given in the order and to pass a reasoned order as early a possible at any rate within a period of three months.
In compliance with the orders dated 01.05.2008 of the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A No. 231/2007, the cse of the applicant was reconsidered for the second time in the CRC held on 03.11.2009 and was rejected on the ground that the applicant had o liability and his condidtion was not as indigent in comparision to other cases recommended. The decision of the CRC was communicated to the applicant.
Being aggrieved with the decions of the CRC held on
03.11.2009,, the applicant Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak filed O.A No. 117/2010 before the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench with a prayer to quash the order of rejection.
-3-
The Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of the case vide orders dated 16.11.20011 with the direction to consider the case one more occasion in the CRC in terms of DOP& T instruction 05.05.2003.
According to the direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the case of Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak was reconsidered for the third time in the CRC held on 11.01.2013 along with other 38 cases for appointment in Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant and Postman/Mail Guard Cadres against 07(PA-04+PM-03) posts available under compassionate quota but his case could not be approved because as per merit points obtained by him based on indigency-related parameters/norms of the Department he did not come within the Zone of the vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment of PA/SA Cadre & Postman/Mail Guard Cadres. The applicant secured 30 points, whereas the last person recommended for PA/SA & Postman/Mail Guard Cadres secured 64 points.
Further, as per the direction of Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, the case of Sri Sanjay Kumar Nayak was reconsidered for the third time in the CRC held on 14.01.2013 along with other 81 cases for appointment in MTS Cadre also, against 09 posts available under compassionate quota, but here also his case could not be approved because as per merit points obtained by him based on indigency-related parameters/norms of the Department he did not come within the Zone of the vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment of MTS Cadre. The applicant secured 30 points whereas the last person selected against 9 earmarked posts in MTS Cadre, secured 84 points.
In view of the position explained above though the Circle Relaxation Committee considered the case of the applicant on 11.01.2013 & 14.01.2013 in the Cadre of PA/SA/Postman/Mail Guard & MTS also, the applicant's case could not be recommended by the CRC.
This reasoned and speaking order is issued in obedience to the order dated 16.11.20111 of Hon'ble CAT Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.117/2010.
S. K. Chakrabati, Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001.
Regd/AD: Sri Sanjay Kuamr Nayak, S/o-Late Surendra Kumar Nayak, Ex-SA, HRO RMS N Dn, At: Kaintala, PO:
Gorada, Via: Tirtol, Dist-Jagatsingpur, Odisha."
3. The applicant has challenged the above two impugned orders at Annexures A/15 and A/16 and prayed for the following reliefs: -4-
" In the view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to admit the Original Application and issue notices to the respondents to show cause as to why the orders under Annexure-A/15 and A/16 shall not be quashed and in the event if the respondents show no cause or show insufficient cause this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure-A/15 and A/16 and be pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider the matter and give appointment to any post befitting to his qualification under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme."
4. The matter was heard on 28.06.2018 when the respective counsels presented their arguments. I have gone through the counter filed by the Respondents on 22.07.2013 and the Rejoinder filed on 02.09.2013 and carefully analyzed the points raised by them during the argument. Ld. Counsel for the applicant challenges the points awarded to the applicant. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents has filed Annexure-R/3 series containing the minutes of the Circle Relaxation Committee(CRC) meeting dated 16.01.2013 including the points awarded to the applicant. From Annexure R/2 it is apparent that the applicant has been awarded 30 points. Both the Ld. Counsels agreed on the mark on item No. A with the heading Family Pension. The twenty points awarded are correct. On Item No. B under the heading Terminal Benefits the zero points awarded are also correct. Both the Ld. Counsels admitted that there is an error in Item No. C where Rs. 9,319/- has been taken as the monthly income whereas it should be taken as Annual Income and the applicant is entitled to four points instead of zero. The applicant has also mentioned in the rejoinder that the Annual Income from his Agricultural land is Rs. 15,000. If the applicant is awarded four more points he will get 34 instead of the present 30.
5. As per the minutes of CRC held on 16.01.2013, out of 31 cases which were rejected the applicant is found in the last position at 31. Seven candidates who were recommended for Compassionate Appointment had points in the range of -5- 82-64, meaning thereby the first candidate scored 82 and the seventh candidate scored 64. Out of 39 cases the Applicant had the lowest score of 30. Even if he gets 34 he will still be in the lowest position since the candidate above him has secured 37 marks.
6. The applicant's case has already been considered three times by the CRC. On two earlier occasions, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per the law. On 16.11.2011 this Tribunal in O.A No. 117/2010 had directed the respondents for consideration of the case of Applicant for one more time. The CRC has considered the case of the applicant in terms of DOP&T instructions dated 05.05.2003. Considering the points secured by the applicant vis-à-vis candidates recommended for Compassionate Appointment I find no illegality in the recommendation of the CRC.
7. Applicant's father had expired in 2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have held that Compassionate Appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be a substitute for regular appointment {V. Sivamurthy & Ans. Vs State of A.P & Ors (2008) 13 SCC 730, Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 481.} It is also a settled law that compassionate appointment should be given in proximity to the death of the Govt. employee. In the case of Santosh Kumar dubey Vs Sate of U.P (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court rightly observed that the request for appointment on compassionate ground should be reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread earner of family inasmuch as the very purpose is to ensure financial help to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring to the family of the employee who had died in harness. In the case of Haryana SEB Vs. Naresh Tanwar (1996) 8 SCC 23, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Compassionate Appointment is an exception to the general Rule of open recruitment and is intended to meet the immediate financial crisis to the family of the deceased -6- employee. Similar position has also been upheld in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana 1994 4 SCC 138, Haryana SEB Vs. Krishna Devi (2002) SCC 246 and State of U.P Vs. Paras Nath (1998) 2 SCC 412.
9. The gist of the above judgements is that Compassionate Appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time from the death of the employee. In the present case death of the applicant's father occurred in 2003. Applicant's case has already been considered thrice and in the latest meeting of the CRC the applicant's position was at the bottom of the list of cases considered.
10. Taking into account the facts of the case and points of law involved there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents to reject the Applicant's case. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(M. Sarangi) Member(Admn.) pms