Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Naresh Kumar Verma vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2011
Jabalpur, this the 9th day of May, 2011
HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Naresh Kumar Verma, aged about 27 yrs.
S/O Late Bainlal Verma
2. Smt. Shanti Verma, aged about 51 years,
W/o Late Bainlal Verma
Both Resident of Street No.10, Sector No.1,
Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Pin 491001 - Applicants
(By Advocate Smt.June Choudhary)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Asstt. General Manager (Pars.IV)
5th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
2. Sr. General Manager (HR/Adm.)
O/O Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L. Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle,
Khamardih Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur. Pin-492007
3. Asstt. General Manager
O/O Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L.
Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle Khamardih,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur. Pin 492001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.P.Singh)
O R D E R (Oral)
This is a joint Application filed by the son and wife of late Bainlal Verma seeking compassionate appointment for Applicant No.1. Late Bainlal Verma was working as Telecom Mechanic with the Respondents and he died in an accident at the age of 46 on 14.01.2004, leaving behind his family consisting of four children and wife. The Applicant No.1 applied for compassionate appointment on 24.05.2004. Thereupon Applicant No.1 was directed to file no objection certificate from other family members of the deceased-employee. Accordingly, no objection certificate was filed by the Applicants. In spite of making strenuous efforts he could not get any information from the Respondents on his request for compassionate appointment. He learnt that certain appointments were being made in the year 2008. Upon inquiry, he was informed that papers of his case had been forwarded to Registered Office at New Delhi and they would inform him as and when any information is received from the Registered Office. The Applicant has now been informed by the Respondents vide letter dated 20.01.2011, a copy of which is filed at Annexure A-1 informing him that his case was considered, but not recommended.
2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the impugned order is not in accordance with the scheme on compassionate appointment. The Respondents have erred in taking a stand that the wife having first preference for compassionate appointment, the case of the Applicant No.1- the son of the deceased-employee, would not be considered. The Respondents have further acted upon on a wrong premise that Applicant No.1 being qualified is in a position to take care of himself and does not need any help by way of compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the Applicant strenuously urged that the impugned order of the Respondents can not be sustained in law and is in violation of provisions of the scheme on compassionate appointment.
3. The Applicants claim is being opposed by Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents for the reason that the case of the Applicant has been duly considered in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Further, the screening committee did not recommend his case for the reason as mentioned in the impugned order. Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel strenuously contended that there is nothing wrong in the findings recorded by the screening committee as these are perfectly in order and the same is not open to any objection in law. He further contended that there is no scope for any back door entry as the Respondents are still agree to consider the case of the Applicant No.2/wife of late employee as in the opinion of the screening committee she was the first in order of merit to be considered for benefits under the scheme.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. I have also carefully gone through the records of the case. Before dealing with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of the scheme, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure A-4. It is seen that the scheme is applicable to the dependent family members. It does not make any distinction amongst the members of the family of the deceased-employee. The dependent family member has also been defined in the scheme as follows:-
Dependent Family Member means
(a) spouse; or
(b) son (including adopted son); or
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or
(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para.
Who was wholly dependent on the Government servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.
The scheme further provides that appointments under the scheme are to be made to Group C or Group D posts against the direct recruitment quota. Para 5 of the scheme provides for eligibility, which reads as follows:-
Eligibility:
(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and
(b) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules
5. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Respondents seem to have misdirected themselves in not appreciating the proper and correct scope and ambit of the scheme. No doubt widow of late employee would be given first preference, if other members of the family so desires. However, if the widow herself states that she is not inclined to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and recommends that her son should be considered, it is not for the department to take a contrary view and not consider the case of the son. The Screening Committee also seems to have misdirected when it observes that son being qualified is capable of taking care of himself. The son is eligible to be considered under the scheme and entitled to be considered for the post for which he is found suitable under the scheme.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above I am of the considered opinion that the Respondents order contained in Annexure A-1 is not sustainable in law being not in conformity with the provisions of the scheme on compassionate grounds. I accordingly quash it and remand back the matter to the Respondents to reconsider the case of Applicant No.1 in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and in accordance with the observations made hereinabove.
7. The OA is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Judicial Member rkv