Ashok Kumar Swain vs Union Of India & Ors

Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)

The applicant has filed the present OA challenging the decision of the CRC meeting without assessing the case of the applicant appropriately vis-a-vis the others by the respondents and not discussing the indigent condition of the family. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs :

i) To quash the order dated 7.2.2014 under Annexure A/4, order dated 17.5.2016 under Annexure A/6 and order dated 9.5.2017 under Annexure A/7;

ii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants case for providing an employment under compassionate quota for the ends of justice;

iii) To pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in this case.

The facts of the case in brief are that the father of the applicant died on 03.10.2011 while working as Mailman under Respondent No.3 leaving behind the widow, two sons and two married daughters. The applicant made representation for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 7.2.2014 (Annexure-A/4) on the ground of obtaining less merit point and hence his case did not come within the zone of selection for earmarked post. On 30.10.2015 the applicant made another representation to the respondent No.2 and approached this Tribunal in OA 66/2016, which was disposed of by the order dated 10.3.2016 (Annexure A/5) directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 30.10.2015. Respondents considered the representation and vide order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure-A/6) intimated that the compassionate appointment case of applicant was reconsidered in the CRC meeting held on 11.04.2016 against earmarked vacancy quota of 5% for the year 2015 but could not be approved by the CRC as he secured 42 merit points in a 100 point scale based on indigency related parameters/norms whereas the last selected candidate secured 58 merit points. Next CRC meeting was held on 25.4.2017 which considered the case of the applicant but not approved due to less merit points. This was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 9.5.2017 (Annexure A/7). Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA.

The respondents in their counter have stated that the claim of the applicant that the indigent condition of his family was not properly considered by the CRC is improper and baseless because on all the occasions as mentioned by the applicant i.e. on 7.2.2014, 17.5.2016 and 9.5.2017, the case of the applicant was duly considered by the CRC based on indigent related parameters/norms of the department. It is also stated that the case of the applicant was considered for three times by the CRC and on all occasions the outcome was duly communicated to him and, therefore, the last representation of the applicant dated 3.5.2019 was not considered as his prayers in the representation was similar to that of prayers made in earlier representations. It is further stated that the direction of this Tribunal in OA 66/2016 was implemented by CRC meeting held on 11.4.2016 wherein the case of the applicant was considered and rejected following the prescribed norms. It is also submitted by the respondents that the appeal made by the applicant through his representation dated 3.5.2019 for appointment in GDS post is subject to decision of the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) and subject to availability of vacancy. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the present OA being devoid of merit.

The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in the OA.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that had the employee concerned survived, he would have retired from service in 2017. He was the only earning member of his family and he left leaving behind two sons and the widow without any means of livelihood. The sole aim and object for providing employment assistance on compassionate ground came into effect to meet the financial crisis faced by the family after the sudden death of the bread earner. Therefore, rejecting the applicant’s claim on the ground that the CRC did not approve his case as he secured less merit points in a scale of 100 based on indigent related parameters so as to be accommodated within the 5% of the earmarked vacancy under compassionate quota frustrates the very aim and object of the scheme more so when his case was found in fact indigent. Further, it is submitted that the point system consideration has been dispensed with vide letter dated 30.05.2017 and, therefore, by applying such point system, the applicant could not have been deprived of his legitimate claim for employment on compassionate ground, even for GDS vacancy. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has prayed that the case of the applicant being genuine one and the family are still in indigent condition, he is entitled for the relief claimed in the O.A.

Per contra, Ld Counsel for the respondents has submitted that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception of rules and the mandate enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the consideration of such appointment should be made strictly in accordance with rules. The case of the applicant was duly considered thrice but on each occasion taking into consideration the liabilities and other parameters, he had got lesser point even than the last candidate approved for appointment under 5% ceiling under compassionate appointment quota, his case was not approved by the CRC. It has been submitted that even it is accepted that the point system was dispensed with vide letter dated 30.05.2017, the same was of no help to the applicant as the third consideration of his case was made on 09.05.2017, which is prior to the letter dated 30.05.2017. On the aforesaid ground, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this O.A.

After giving thoughtful consideration to the various points raised by the respective parties in support of their cases, it may be recorded that one cannot claim the appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right is the law of the land. Such appointment is subject to fulfilment of the conditions and yardsticks provided in various instructions issued by the competent authority from time to time. In the instant case, it is seen that the father of the applicant died on 03.10.2011 and his case was considered thrice by the CRC, i.e. on 07.02.2014, 17.5.2016 and 9.5.2017. In the meantime, 11 years have elapsed from the death of his father and, thus, the family had been able to tide over the first impact of the death of the employee concerned. This Tribunal has come across in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Local Administration Department Vs M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu in Civil Appeal No. 2206/2006 disposed of on 05.04.2011 have held as under:

“An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.”

For the facts and law as discussed above, this Tribunal do not find any legal infirmity in the decision making process of the matter and resultant order of rejection of the request of the applicant for providing employment assistance on compassionate ground. Hence, the O.A. stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.