Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Sarada vs South Central Railway on 21 June, 2024
OA.No.020/36/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
OA.No.020/36/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON : 07.06.2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21.06.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
G.Sarada, w/o Subramanyam,
Aged about 34 years, Occ:Unemployee,
Gr.C, R/o Chithaparthi (V), Vayalpadu (M),
Annamayya District. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Shaik Sabjan)
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep., by its
General Manager, SCR, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
2. The Workshop Personnel Officer,
SCR, Secunderabad.
3. The Workshop Personnel Officer,
Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupathi. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.A.Surender Reddy, Sr.PC for CG)
P a g e | 1 of 10
OA.No.020/36/2023
ORDER
PER HON‟BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:
"To declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment, vide proceedings dated 11.07.2020, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to reconsider her case for any suitable job under compassionate grounds and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that her mother late D.Ramanamma, Ex-Safaiwala, expired on 13.04.2012, and the monetary and settlement dues were paid by the respondents to her and her sister. She has completed her SSC as a private candidate in the month of July 2020. She and her younger sister G.Krishna Veni are married. Her husband is working as Lorry Driver and she has two children viz., G.Guna Teja (18 years) pursuing ITI and G.Harshitha (17 years) pursuing Intermediate. Her father died long back and the family was survived and taken care off by her mother till her last breath. She being the eldest daughter, all the family responsibilities had been taken care off by her.
3. The applicant has further submitted that after the demise of her mother, huge amounts were borrowed from the vendors as debt and some of the debts were settled from the amounts received from the respondents. She belongs to Scheduled Caste community (Mala) and she is doing petty jobs like coolie to eke out their livelihood, and as their family financial condition is very poor and P a g e | 2 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 could not pay the debt amount, they were forced to shift to their native place i.e., Chinthaparth in Chittoor District.
4. The applicant has further submitted that as she came to know from the Union that the married daughter can avail compassionate appointment, she submitted a representation dated 08.01.2020 to the respondents stating that she has completed her 10th Standard and requesting to consider her case for compassionate ground appointment on humanitarian grounds. The respondents, vide their letter dated 11.07.2020, rejected her case stating that she do not possess the requisite qualification as on date.
5. The applicant has further submitted that she has submitted numerous representations the latest being 11.05.2022, but there was no response from the respondents. Hence, the present OA.
6. The respondents have contested the OA by filing a reply statement. They have submitted that Smt.D.Ramanamma, w/o late D.Yerraiah, was appointed on compassionate grounds on 25.06.1997 as Hospital Safaiwali in Medical Department, consequent on the death of her husband. While working as such, she had expired on 13.04.2012. At the time of her death, her two daughters were married and living with their own families, and were not living with their mother. After her death, the entire settlement benefits were paid to her two married daughters viz., Smt.G.Sarada and G.Krishnaveni equally. As there were no eligible dependent family members for grant of family pension, the same P a g e | 3 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 was not granted to anyone and only settlement benefits were distributed. The deceased D.Ramanamma did not left with any dependent family member at the time of her death.
7. The respondents have further submitted that after a period of 8 years, the applicant, who is the eldest married daughter and leading a family life of her own with her husband, has given a request letter dated 08.01.2020 for her appointment on compassionate grounds consequent on her mother‟s death in 2012.
8. The respondents have further submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment has been evolved by Railways with the idea of providing immediate relief in a situation where the family is subjected to financial distress due to the sudden loss of income consequent on the death of the employee in harness. In the present case, as there were no dependent family members of the deceased Railway employee late D.Ramanamma, the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds does not arise in terms of Serial Circular NO.73/2014 and RBE No.E(NG)III/78/RC-1/1, dated 03.02.1981.
9. The respondents have further submitted that after a long interval of more than 08 years from the date of death of late D.Ramanamma i.e., 13.04.2012, the applicant, the first married daughter of late D.Ramanamma, had represented the 3rd respondent (Workshop Personnel Officer, Carriage Repair Shop, South Central Railway, Tirupati) seeking compassionate ground appointment when P a g e | 4 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 she is happily living with her family though she was not dependent. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, vide letter dated 05.09.2022, had replied to the representation dated 11.05.2022, preferred by the applicant, stating that as there were no dependents, it was not a fit case for consideration of an appointment under compassionate ground. The said order was communicated by WPO/CRS/TPTY to the applicant vide letter dated 25.01.2023. In terms of RBE No.E(NG)III/78/RC-1/1, dated 03.02.1981, the applicant is not dependent to late D.Ramanamma.
10. The respondents have further submitted that compassionate appointment can be considered to married daughters, if they satisfy themselves that the married daughter would be the bread winner of the family of the Railway servant concerned. In the present case, the applicant cannot be said to be the bread winner of the deceased employee i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as he is not dependent on her deceased mother.
11. The respondents have further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another v. Somyashree (2021 SCC Online SC 704), had an occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. After referring to the decision in N.C.Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020 (7) SCC 617), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has summarized as under:
P a g e | 5 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."
12. The respondents have further submitted that in State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Varma (1994 (2) SCC 752, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that -
"It is one thing to say that a family member of the deceased is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, but it is altogether a different thing to say that his appointment should be made regardless of the rules".
Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs.Asha Ramachandra Ambekar (1994) (2) SCC 718), has held that -
"It is true that there may be pitiable situation, but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside".
Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the applicant now on compassionate grounds shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The representation dated 11.05.2022 submitted by the applicant was also disposed of P a g e | 6 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 vide the office letter dated 25.01.2023, duly communicating the decision of the competent authority at Headquarters, Secunderabad.
13. The respondents have, therefore, contended that the OA is devoid of any substance and merit, and there no case is made out for grant of any relief from this Tribunal and prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA.
14. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply statement reiterating the submissions made in the OA. In support of her submissions, she has relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 25.01.2023 in LPA No.462-2021 (O&M) in State of Punjab & Another v. Amarjit Kaur (2023 SCC OnLine P&H 89), wherein it has been held that "discrimination in married and unmarried daughter, whereas the absence of the same in the marital status of the son would be discrimination in compassionate appointment and violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India".
15. The applicant has also relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in G.Uma Sankar v. The Superintending Engineer dated 30.03.2015. and the Allahabad High Court in Smt.Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another in Writ © No.60881/2015 & batch, dated 04.12.2015, and contended that rejecting her case for compassionate appointment on the ground of „married daughter‟ is liable to be set aside as arbitrary, illegal, discrimination and in clear violation of the applicant‟s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also against the law laid by P a g e | 7 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Kaur dated 25.01.2023 and the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.10340/2014, dated 26.02.2021 in Ch.Dhamayanthi v. APSRTC.
16. Heard Mr.K.Sudhaker Reddy representing Mr.Shaik Sabjan, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.A.Surender Reddy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
17. This is a case where the applicant‟s mother late D.Ramanamma, w/o late D.Yerraiah, herself was appointed on compassionate grounds on 25.06.1997 as Hospital Safaiwali, in Medical Department consequent on the death of her husband. She died on 13.04.2012. At the time of her death, her two daughters first Smt.G.Sarada, the applicant herein (D.O.B: 06.02.1988), and second G.Krishnaveni, (D.O.B: 04.06.1989), were married and living with their husbands and children. They were not living with their mother. The late B.Ramanamma has not left any dependent. Moreover, the applicant has not applied immediately for compassionate appointment. After 08 years in the year 2020, she applied for compassionate appointment. The respondents have considered her application and rejected on the ground that she is staying independently with her husband and children, she was not dependent on her own deceased mother late D.Ramanamma, and there is no dependent to be looked after in the family. Both the daughters of late D.Ramanamma were married and not staying with the mother since their marriage. The applicant got P a g e | 8 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 married in the year 2001 and since then she is staying with her husband and family. Though the applicant is married, but settled in her own life, she is not dependent on the deceased late D.Ramanamma for her survival etc.
18. There are number of judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court wherein it has been very categorically expressed that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a gesture of the Government to relieve the family from the immediate financial distress and trauma. In the instant case, the surviving daughters of late D.Ramanamma, have received full retiral benefits as per rule. They are not dependent on her. After a gap of 08 long years, the applicant thought of applying for compassionate appointment, which cannot be justified. If it is given, it will be a back door entry into the Government service. Poverty alone cannot be the sole criteria for giving compassionate appointment like this. If it is so, then every poor needs to be given the same treatment.
19. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another v. Somyashree (2021 SCC Online SC 704), after referring to the decision in N.C.Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020 (7) SCC 617), summarized beautifully that the compassionate appointment is exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment. The appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the P a g e | 9 of 10 OA.No.020/36/2023 application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
20. In another case in State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Varma (1994 (2) SCC 752, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that -
"It is one thing to say that a family member of the deceased is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, but it is altogether a different thing to say that his appointment should be made regardless of the rules".
21. In the instant case, the applicant is not justified in requesting compassionate appointment when she is not dependent on the late D.Ramanamma, the employee of the South Central Railway, who herself was a compassionate appointee after the death of her husband. The applicant is staying independently with her husband and family.
22. In view of the above position, I find no merit in the OA and the OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( SHALINI MISRA ) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Dsn.
P a g e | 10 of 10