Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Sri. A.J. Raju

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent herein is the son of late Sri. Jayanna. Jayanna was working as Telecom Mechanic (TM) in Bangalore Telecom District, Bangalore. He expired on 25.10.2005 at the age of 46 years with left out service of about 13 years. The respondent made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. His application was rejected by the third respondent as per the order at Annexure-A. 7 dated 15.2.2011. He challenged the said order by filing O.A. No. 284/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore. The Tribunal by its order at Annexure-C dated 06.09.2013 has allowed the application in the following terms:-

Therefore, his case must be considered with 68 points rather than with 53 points. Respondents has to consider whether anybody less than 68 points have been accommodated in this selection. If then, they are permitted to treat this as a mistake committed and cure it by adjusting the vacancy and granting appointment to the applicant. If people with more than 68 points have been considered in this selection, then the applicant is entitled for 3 more selection opportunities after the vacancies have been marshaled, as this consideration cannot be considered as a consideration, as non-application of mind is conspicuous. First such consideration is to be completed within the next 3 months.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent was allotted 53 points while counting the weightage point for the assessment of his indigent condition. The threshold limit for consideration of appointment is 55 points. Therefore, his application was rejected by the third respondent. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the respondent is entitled for award of 68 weightage points. Alternatively, it is submitted that the respondent is not entitled for three selection opportunities as directed by the Tribunal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order.

The policy guidelines for appointment on compassionate grounds made by the Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited dated 27.06.2007 is at Annexure-A. 2. As per these guidelines, dependents are entitled for allotment of 5 points each. Similarly, a minor child has to be allotted 5 points. Admittedly, dependents of the deceased are his wife and three children. Two of them were minors. If that is so, they are entitled for 30 points. The third respondent has allotted 25 points under this head.

If the applicant''s family is living in a rented house and not owning his own house, they are entitled for 10 points. If his family is living in their own house, they are not entitled for any points. In the instant case, the respondent is not owning his own house. He is living in his grand-mother''s house in a slum area. Therefore, the respondent is also entitled for 10 points under this head.

There is no dispute insofar as allotment of points under other heads. In all, the respondent is entitled for 68 points. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded 68 weightage points. There is no threshold bar for the third petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. As noticed above, Jayanna, father of the respondent had died on 25.10.2005. The OM dated 05.05.2003 provides for the time limit for compassionate appointment. Clause 3 of the said OM states that the maximum time a person''s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again. Taking this OM into consideration, the Tribunal has held that the respondent/applicant is entitled for three selection opportunities after the vacancies have been marshaled. We do not find any error in the order. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.