Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ashalata Bera vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 16 November, 2022
ee ee eee mene ey BER EN mre gf On ACE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA No. O.A. 350/1433/2018 Date of order: 16.11.2022 Present : Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
1. Ashalata Bera, wife of Late Jannath Bera, Village-Tulia, P.O.- Haridaspur, District-Purba Medinipur, Pin-721653, Aged about 93 years;
2. Ranjit Kumar Bera, son of Late Jagannath Bera, Village ~ Tulia, P.O.-Haridaspur, District -- Purba Medinipur, Pin-721653 ..... Applicants
- VERSUS-
1, The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (Government of India Enterprise), Service through its Chairman/Managing Director, 34, BBD Bag, Kolkata -- 700001;
2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Calcutta Telephbone, 34, BBD Bag, Kolkata -- 700001;
3. Assistant General Manager/R&E, Calcutta Telephones/BSNL, 34 BBD Bag, Kolkata -- 700001;
4, Circle High Power Committee, Calcutta Circle Service through its Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones/BSNL, 34 BBD Bag, Kolkata -- 700001;
5. Sub Divisional Engineer (Recruitment --11), Calcutta Telephones, 8, Bentick Street, Kolkata -700001 becaeeee Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. P. Bhaunik, counsel EF or the respondents : Mr. C. S. Bag, counsel - pre aS Fo x NS o Ss s es "
a ne -
om reque a oo Jen re ets ary 2 A "4 : { Ag npassiong ac oh oo pie = 3 Fon bes mS.
he er 'so te 4 = 3 tS SF m = Sa, ts a a sre i .
als Act < i ¢ bras ret Tr Any suck offer ar "fv Hows:
ms, AL "
as te x ene oo = 27 we a, ws oe 4 ger] event ry Smal NI ee RE ther gh ants were fut x aifiere requested to submit decum > "
aoa were alse directed to cansider the case of the applicants in > immovable properties, death benefits, earning documents of all a bers etc, and they submitted all these decurments to family memb vive ASSAY hy iAnnesure A/G) to - 3 the status sanits directing the:
of her son (applicant No.2} who is married and wanted to know s whether his wifk was de dauther PO (Recruttment-TD, Calcutta appoiniment on compassionate ground in favour of Applicant he Ssald tnpugner the applicants fled a writ petition before Fi Caleutta whieh was later transferrec Admini is fs Yribunal, Celentte ati SY Ox COMPNISA! Ny N 3 next Circle Relaxation Commutee/High Power Comonittce constituted for such appointments. 2.5 'Thereafter a memo was issued by the Assistant General ManageyR&E Calcutta Telephones/BSNL. informing about the policy guidelines issued by the BSNL. Carporate Office Wo.273-18/2 2005-Pers. TV dated. 27/6/2007 wherein Weightage Point System for assessment of ind sndition was introduced. . The applicant No.] wes informed -- vide communication dated 25.05.2018 (Annexiuce A/10} thal she was awarded only 39 weightage points which was much less than the bench mark of 56 and therefore, her case could not. be ecommended for compassionate appointrient. Aggrieved by such rejection order, the applicants heve approached. this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliegs, ve denied the elaim 'The respondents have filed written reply wherein they ofthe applicant. "The respondents intheir reply have mainly stated that they have considered the case of the applicants as per the extant rules, but their case could not be recommended for coinmpassionate appointinent as they did not come under the zone of consideration as they scored less merit points, therefore, the O.A. Is misconceived and not maintainable under the rules.
At hearing, Learned C tounsel for the respondents submited as uncer %- as the case of the
4.) That, after conrpletion. of pre-recruitment fh Cc applicants for compassionate appointment was put up before the Central High Power Committee(CHPC) meeting held on 16.08.2005 CDEP 2005), Leas based on thes yards slick of pension drawn per dependent of the family. The family was getting Rs. 14a O/- as pension per dependent member of the family and at that relevant point of time there were limited number of vacancies to accommodate more deserving candidates. Therefore, their case as nol recommended py the DHPC for compassionate appoiatment, which was communicated to the applicants vide order dated 11.05.2005(€Annexure AIS}.
bad.
4.2 The respondenis bave further stated that as per direction of the Tribunal in T.A16 of 2008 dated 16.11.2009, the prayer of the applicants for compassionate gescintaest was reconsidered by the competent i y } ate pe authorities in the light of Weightagse Points System with other deserving > cerns ona cases pursuant to the BSNL CO, ND Cirenlar No.273-18/2005-Pers. PV dated 7.06,2007 aad the applicant scored only 39 points which is below the bench mark of 55 points, therefore, their case could not be recommended for compassionate appointfnent. Therefore, claim of the applicants was duly rejected vide letter. dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure A/10}) which was communicated to the applicants, S. The applicants have filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the same as pleaded in the OLA.
& Heard Learned Cou age i-for both sides and perused the materials on record, 7 On a perusal of pleadings and submissions of both sides, itis clear that the case of the applicants was considered by the DHPC and CAPO for compassionate appoimiment as per the relevant scheme for compas sointment, bul their case conld not be recommended for appointment for the re:
Ss only 39 merit points which was much below the bench mark of 58 weightage points. The rejection letter to that effect was duly comnmmicated to the applicants by the concerned respondent. These establish that after the father of the applicant No.2 died in harness on 04.12.2001, claim of the applicants for compas ssionate appointment was considered time and again as per rules by the respondent authorities. A long time has elapsed Ly ot ne after death of the employee and it has now become a stale cla: fie 8, It is settled principle of law that claim for appointment of compassionate around is not a vested right ¥ vhich can be exercised at any thine in fiture and the abject of compassionate appo armen is to enable the family fo get over the financial crises faced by the family at the time of dea th of the sole bread winner.
The sompassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered afler a lapse 9 ThA A anarax bic Apex | time and after the crisis is over as held by Hon' "
yee ERR CE SS NS SC Res Unies Nagpal vs, State af yaa Overs yeported in & gh $ PL yt 9%, Ta view of the above far tual matrix and in the backdrop of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it carmot be said that the impugn red order suffers from any legal infirmities. Accordingly ihe OA. stands dismissed being devoid of any ie merit. Ne costs. sh