Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sohan Singh vs Northern Railway on 27 February, 2024
1- O.A. No. 1145/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/1145/2022
Pronounced on:27.02.2024
Reserved on: 14.02.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Sohan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Late Sh. Vijay Singh, resident
of House No. 343/3, Kachha Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Tehsil & District
Ambala, Haryana.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Neeru)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), through its Secretary, Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi
- 110001.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division DRM Office
Complex, Northern Railway Ambala Cantt- 133001.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Ambala Division DRM Office
Complex, Northern Railway, Amabla Cantt, Haryana - 133001.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash the order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure A-10) passed by respondent No. 4 conveying the decision of the Headquarters Office (Respondent No 1) rejecting the claim of the applicant for 2- O.A. No. 1145/2022 appointment on compassionate grounds in view of Railway Board‟s letter No. E (NG) II/2009/RC-1/CR/2 dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure A-7).
(ii) To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and appoint the applicant in grade pay of Rs.1800/- in accordance with rules, on a suitable post, w.e.f. the date the applicant applied for compassionate appointment, with all consequential benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the mother of the applicant was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 Grade Pay Rs.1800/-, on 05.08.1997, on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband. During service, the mother of the applicant suffered medical ailment and the Medical Board declared her medically decategorized and unfit vide decision dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure A-2). She was retired on medical grounds w.e.f. 31.10.2013, vide order dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure A-3). The mother of the applicant requested the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in the grade pay of Rs.1800/-. However, the respondents rejected the claim vide letter dated 09.02.2014 (Annexure A-4), on the ground that as per the rules in vogue, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of dependent member of the family is to be made within a period of five years from the date of medical decategorization and the appointment can be given to the dependant ward after having passed 10th standard but in exceptional cases of hardship appointment can be offered on the basis of 8th standard.
3- O.A. No. 1145/2022
3. It has been further submitted that the mother of the applicant died on 24.12.2017. The applicant completed his matriculation on 19.04.2018 and made a request vide application dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure A-5) to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds in the Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. The respondent no. 3 forwarded the request of the applicant to Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 18.07.2019, who rejected the same vide letter dated 08.01.2020 while relying upon Railway Board letter dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure A-7). The applicant challenged the decision of the Respondent No. 1 dated 08.01.2020 through All India Railwaymen‟s Federation vide letter dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure A-8), which further requested the Railway Board to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds while referring to circulars/letters of the Railway Board on the issue. The respondents rejected the case vide order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure A-10), conveyed vide letter dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure A-11) by the headquarters Office to the General Secretary of the Federation. The Union again represented through letter dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure A-12) which remained unanswered.
4. The contention of the applicant is that the instructions allow appointment on compassionate grounds to the ward of the medically decategorized staff and these instructions nowhere draw a distinction qua partial/total incapacitation, nor the instructions prohibit consideration of the wards of the medically decategorized staff. The term medical decategorization is sufficient to treat the ward of the medically decategorized employee eligible but the respondents in utter 4- O.A. No. 1145/2022 disregard to the scheme/instructions have rejected the claim under the guise of letter dated 03.03.2009.
5. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was processed at the time when her mother was declared medically decategorized on 25.09.2012 but could not be considered because the applicant was not 10 th pass at that time. Further, the applicant applied for compassionate grounds on 14.05.2018 after a gap of five years of her mother‟s medical de- categorization on 25.09.2012, therefore, the case was sent to HQ office for clarification in view of letter dated 06.01.1997 (Annexure R-6) which provide that the cases of wards of medically de-categorized employees are considered for appointment on compassionate grounds only within a period of 05 years from the date of medical de-categorization of the ex employee. After scrutiny of the case, the HQ office found the applicant ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of guidelines by Board‟s letter dated 03.03.2009. Therefore, the case could not be considered for compassionate appointment.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder stating therein that the five years period should be counted from the date her mother retired i.e. 31.10.2013 because the respondents themselves delayed the matter with regard to absorbing the mother of the applicant on alternative post and she was allowed to continue on supernumerary post till her voluntary retirement on medical grounds till 31.10.2013. Therefore, the delay from 25.09.2012 to 31.10.2013 is required to be excluded being 5- O.A. No. 1145/2022 delay due to administrative reasons for the purpose of considering the request of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. The applicant further contended that the letter dated 03.03.2009 does not apply to the case of the applicant as there is no order of competent authority declaring the mother of the applicant unfit on the original post/original category as the said decision was to be taken in the meeting scheduled on 27.09.2013 to adjudge the suitability. Also, the letter dated 06.01.1997 is not applicable as the case of the applicant is well within the stipulated period of five years in view of RBE No. 78/2006 dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure A-9) as the mother of the applicant was medically decategorized after the cut-off date i.e. 18.01.2000.
7. I have gone through the pleadings and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides.
8. Admittedly, the applicant‟s mother was declared medically de- catgorized on 25.09.2012. Vide letter dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure A-2), the applicant‟s mother was adjusted on a supernumerary post till 31.10.2013 when she was retired voluntarily from railway service on medical ground. Vide letter dated 10.11.2013, the applicant‟s mother requested the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to her son Sohan Singh (applicant herein) and to keep the case pending till June 2014, so that, he could pass 10th standard. However, her requested was not acceded to and the case was closed vide letter dated 10.02.2014. The applicant‟s mother again requested to grant compassionate appointment to her son after passing of 10 th class by him vide Annexure R-4 dated 05.05.2014. Thereafter, on 14.05.2018, the 6- O.A. No. 1145/2022 applicant made a request to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds as he has passed 10th standard on 19.04.2018. The Respondent No. 3 recommended the applicant‟s case for compassionate appointment to Respondent No. 1, who rejected the case in view of guidelines dated 03.03.2009.
9. I have perused the letter dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure A-9) issued by respondent no.2 wherein it has been mentioned that pursuant to the demand raised by staff side the issue has been deliberated upon at length in the full Board meeting and it has been decided that compassionate ground appointment to the wife/wards/dependants of partially medically de-categorized staff, who seeks voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following provisions:-
(a) The appointment will be given only in the eligible Group „D‟ categories. „Eligible‟ would mean that in case Group „D‟ category, the same would also apply for the compassionate ground appointments.
(b) Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorised at a time when they have at least 5 years or more service left.
The applicant‟s mother was declared medically de-categorized on 25.09.2012, however she continued to work till 31.10.2013 whereas she was due to retire in January 2018. Thus, at the time of medical de- categorization, she has more than five years of service at her credit. I am of the opinion that the claim of the applicant for appointment on 7- O.A. No. 1145/2022 compassionate grounds qualifies for consideration as per clause 4(b) of the letter aforementioned.
10. The respondents also took objection that the applicant did not apply within five years of her mother‟s medical decategorization. It is seen that the applicant‟s mother was declared medically decategorized on 25.09.2012 and the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds after passing 10th standard, vide letter dated 14.05.2018. However, the mother of the applicant approached the respondents, undisputedly, on 16.11.2013 and thereafter on 05.05.2014 to consider her son for appointment on compassionate appointment after passing of 10th examination by him. The applicant could not apply within five years of declaration of medically decategorization of her mother i.e. by 25.09.2017 as he passed the 10th examination on April, 2018 only. The applicant has lost both his parents and his elder brother is missing. Such cases deserve compassion, which is the objective of the Scheme to provide financial assistance to the family members of the ex-employee, who lost their employment due to medical de- categorization. Such cases should not be straightaway thrown away on technical ground of delay, which is only eight months in the present case and that too for a very valid reason. This was the reason that Respondent No. 3 recommended the case of the applicant to Respondent No. 1. However, the Respondent No. 1 rejected the claim by a non-speaking order.
11. The claim of the applicant has been rejected by Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 20.07.2020 and conveyed to applicant on 24.09.2020 on the basis of clarification issued by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 8- O.A. No. 1145/2022 03.03.2009. For better appreciation of the case, the contents of the letter dated 03.03.2009 are reproduced hereunder:-
"Sub: Clarification regarding appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of ex-medically decategorized employees.
On the subject mentioned above, it is clarified that only those railway employees will be considered under medical de- categorized category who are unfit in Original Post and Original category but fit in lower medical categories/post."
From the perusal of impugned communication (Annexure A-10) dated 11.09.2020, it is noticed that the respondents themselves have taken approximately two years‟ time in considering, rejecting the claim dated 10.10.2018 and communicating the same to the applicant, which is not justified in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground.
12. I have also perused the Annexure A-2 dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure A-2) which is Medical Board recommendation with regard to the applicant‟s mother and her adjustment against a supernumerary post. The recommendations of the Medical Board with respect to the applicant are mentioned ar. Sr. No. 2 of the letter, which are as under:-
"Unfit by Medical Committee/UMB held on 25.09.2012 as RRB physical description-Bilateral bipolar arrthoplasty. The employee is unfit as RRB/SSE/Local/UMB and fit in medical category Ce One and below with glasses for distance and near vision for alternative employment on medical ground (AERMG) where 9- O.A. No. 1145/2022 squatting, sitting cross legged repetitive climbing of stair, fast walking and walking for long distance is not required."
On a harmonious reading of aforesaid letters, I find that the applicant‟s case deserves consideration as her mother (ex-employee of the railways department) was declared unfit in her own category but fit in lower category/post. The order dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure R-8/1) issued by Respondent No. 1 and the order/communication dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure R-8) issued by Respondent No. 4 are non-speaking as these nowhere mention as to how the case of the applicant deserves rejection in terms of clarification dated 03.03.2009. Further, from Annexure A-7 dated 03.03.2009 issued by respondent no. 2, it transpires that vide said communication the clarification was communicated to the GM(Personnel) Central Railway, Mumbai in respect of their query vide letter dated 22.07.2008. The said communication does not throw any light to the issue of claim of appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 10.10.2018. The rejection of claim of the applicant on the basis of clarification dated 03.03.2009 does not appear to be reasonable and justified. Any order/letter issued by the authority rejecting any claim of appointment on compassionate ground ought to have weighed with reasons and should be self-explanatory. These basic ingredients are missing in the impugned orders issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant and for this reason the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order 11.09.2020 (Annexure A-10) is hereby quashed and set aside being non-speaking and bereft of any reasoning. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of 10- O.A. No. 1145/2022 the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made in the order hereinabove. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟