Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL and others vs Tittin, P.

P.S. Gopinathan, J.—The respondents in O.A. No. 675/2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench assails

the order dated 27-5-2011, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The father

of the respondent, V. Pushkaran, who died on 13-10-2005, was a Telephone Mechanic under the petitioners. Seeking employment under the

Compassionate Employment Scheme the respondent, who is one among the three legal heirs, preferred an application before the petitioners along

with requisite performa and consent from other legal heirs. The petitioners declined the request by Annexure A-1 order assailing which the

respondent moved the Tribunal below. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27-5-2011 allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to

reconsider the application filed by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, this petition was filed.

We have heard Smt. I. Sheela Devi, the learned standing counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the documents. The

argument of the petitioners is that following the death of the father of the respondent a family pension of Rs. 3,830 was granted to the mother of the

respondent. Towards the retiral benefits, a sum of Rs. 5,41,823 was also sanctioned. As per the norms set up by the petitioners, the respondent is

not entitled to get employment on compassionate grounds.

It is not disputed that the family pension amount would hardly suffice to make both ends meet for a family consisting three adult members.

Pension amount is much lower than the salary of a part-time sweeper now a days get. Annexure A-6 (1) would show that deceased had a liability

amounting to Rs. 1,86,506 towards Cash and Hire Purchase Loan from the Ernakulam District Posts, Telecom & BSNL Employees'' Co-

operative Society Ltd. Annexure A-6(2) would show that as principal debtor, late Pushkaran had liability amounting to Rs. 1,43, 313 with

Catholic Syrian Bank. In addition to that, there is an indirect liability as guarantor for a sum of Rs. 1,09,149. If the above amounts are deducted

from the benefits granted to the respondent''s family, practically there would be no balance to have anything to invest for an income to meet the

sudden void created by the death of Pushkaran. Annexure A-6(3), a certificate issued from the Jesus Hospital, Karuvelipady, Cochin, would show

that the mother of the respondent was undergoing treatment for lumbago and that she was advised to undergo a major operation for lumbar spine.

There is no case for the petitioners that the respondent''s family had any other source of income. So, on income basis and asset basis, the order of

the Tribunal is anyway wrong.

It is not in dispute that the Compassionate Employment Scheme is to assist the family of the deceased employee living in penury and without any

means of livelihood and to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and also to help them to get over the

emergency. Whatever may be the norms adopted by the petitioners in declining (he compassionate employment sought by the respondent, having

gone through the order impugned, we find that in the circumstances stated earlier the Tribunal had not gone wrong or that the order impugned is

perverse, arbitrary or illegal. It is admitted that 5% vacancies are reserved for employment under compassionate ground. The Tribunal had also

noticed that the petitioners were rigid in dealing an application for compassionate employment and had declined the request solely on the basis of

the alleged norms fixed subsequently. What we could understand from the order of the Tribunal is that if the application of the respondent is dealt

with compassion as per the norms existing on the date of application, the respondent would be a deserving candidate. The learned counsel for the

petitioner could not assail that conclusion. We cannot support the denial of benefit under Compassionate Employment Scheme due to subsequent

change of norms. Beneficial schemes are to be implemented as per the norms existing as on the date of application. In such cases, interpretation

shall always be in favour of the beneficiary. Further from the argument it appears that the norms now fixed is in such way that if there are more

children there is better chance to get employment. For example, suppose the deceased has only one surviving son, he would get only 5 marks out

of the cut off marks fixed at 55. Suppose the deceased has six children, they would get 30 marks, i.e., more than 50% of the required marks. Such

norms is really an encouragement for those who procreate more children in defiance to the National Population Policy and a curse for those who

follows the National Policy. However, we don''t propose to go into those aspect as otherwise we find no error of jurisdiction, perversity or

illegality in the order impugned. There is no case that the petitioners have to give employment to any other person who is more deserving than the

respondent. We find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The petitioners

are directed to dispose the application of the respondent at the earliest, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.