Raj Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors

Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

By way of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by respondent no. 3 and to consider the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds under dying in harness rules with all consequential benefits.

The facts of the case of the applicant, in brief, are that the father of the applicant Late Baboo Lal, who was appointed as Track Man under Jhansi Divison, died on 19.08.2015 due to an accident while he was on duty at Karari Railway Station, Jhansi. At that time the applicant was minor. It is stated that Late Baboo Lal and his wife Smt. Ram Shree adopted the applicant through a registered deed dated 29.06.2007 which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jhansi as per provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act as they had no children. The applicant has also stated that in his educational certificate and in other records, his father’s name is recorded as Baboo Lal. The applicant also conducted the death ceremony of his father Late Baboo Lal. It is stated that after the death of Late Baboo Lal, the mother of the applicant lost her mental control and she disappeared from Jhansi. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application on 02.09.2015 in Thana Sipri Bazar, Jhansi and later on, she was traced out from Nagpur. It is stated that as mental condition of the mother of the applicant was very abnormal, her brother received retiral dues of his father behind his back and her brother is also enjoying family pension. It is also contended that the applicant and his mother were fully dependent upon income of Late Baboo Lal, hence after attaining the age of majority on 14.09.2016, the applicant filed a representation dated 01.02.2017 for appointment on compassionate grounds under the rules of railways and also prayed for workman compensation under the rule as the deceased employee died on duty due to an accident and pension in favour of his mother. As the applicant did not received any response from the respondents, he filed OA No. 641/2017 before this Tribunal, which was disposed off with direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 01.02.2017 and in compliance thereto, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 rejecting the claim of the applicant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary as the mother of the applicant is unsound and family pension is meager, hence the applicant entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Upon notice the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein basic fact of the case is not denied that Late Baboo Lal died on 19.08.2015 leaving behind only his wife namely Smt. Ramshree because the deceased employee was issueless as per the office record available with the respondents. The cause of death of the deceased was he fallen from the Train at Karari Station while he was posted there and after death of her husband, Smt. Ramshree submitted an application dated 04.09.2015 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in her favour clearly stating therein that the deceased employee left behind her only and they are issueless. Thereafter, the respondents conducted an inquiry by deputing a senior Welfare Inspector and it was found that wife of the deceased employee Smt. Ramshree had filed in a prescribed format for declaration of dependent family members of the deceased employee dated 23.09.2015 as ‘nil’. The wife of the deceased employee also submitted a notarized affidavit dated 17.09.2015 stating that the deceased employee has left only her as a family member. The respondents have further stated that the deceased employee had submitted a combined nomination on 16.04.2008 in his life time for payment of P.F, GIS and DCRG in case of his death where he nominated only his wife Smt. Ramshree for receiving 100% of the said amount. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the competent authority has given approval for screening of Smt. Ramshree to consider her for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, she was called for screening held on 26.11.2015, 16.12.2015 and 20.01.2016 vide call letters dated 03.11.2015, 02.12.2015 and 04.01.2016 respectively. She also provided her bank account particulars for payment of retiral dues and family pension. Accordingly, it was processed for payment of Rs. 2,54,390/-as retiral dues and Rs. 3500/- as family pension in favour of Smt. Ramshree. The respondents further stated that the applicant had lodged a complaint with regard to missing of Smt. Ramshree due to ill mental status on 02.09.2015 while she had submitted her application for grant of compassionate appointment in her favour on 04.09.2015. It is also stated that during the course of inquiry, she had submitted an affidavit sworn by her on 17.09.2015 at Jhansi. It is also contended that one Shri Hukum Chand, who was the member of Ward No. 27, Municipal Corporation, Jhansi, issued appreciation letter dated 10.09.2015 in favour of Smt. Ramshree. It is also stated that the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the respondents in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 25.05.2017 passed in OA No. 1641/2017 is a reasoned and speaking order and the applicant it trying to mislead the court to obtain appointment by any means, there is no substantive ground to accede to the prayer of the applicant and the OA is liable to be dismissed.

The applicant has filed rejoinder where he reiterates the facts of the OA.

The case came up for final hearing on 12.05.2023. Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents were present and both were heard. I have carefully gone through the entire record, and considered the rival contentions.

From record, it is very clear that the deceased employee died on 19.08.2015 and after his death, his wife Smt. Ramshree has legitimately claimed retiral dues. She also claimed for appointment on compassionate grounds in her favour as per rules and procedure, which was also consideration at that point of time. As the wife of the deceased employee is the first person to be considered for compassionate appointment in preference to all others, and she was considered; but she did not show interest in the same even after several opportunities being given. Hence, rightly it can be concluded that she is not interested. And now, at this belated stage, the applicant claiming himself as adopted son by the deceased employee and his wife Smt. Ramshree, and has filed this OA seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. But, from the records, it reveals that his claim is also not supported by the mother (wife of the deceased) that he should be given compassionate appointment. Apart from the above, since the death of the said employee eight years have passed and at this belated stage, opening the whole case of compassionate appointment as fresh one does not qualify the test of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others – JT 1994(3) SC 525, wherein Apex court has clearly held that appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered only if the family is in indigent circumstances and not as a matter of right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down following the important principle regarding compassionate appointment.

“(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground.

(ii) The posts in Group „C‟ and „D‟ (formerly classes III and IV) are the lowest pots in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds and no other post, i.e., in the Group „A‟ or Group „B‟ category is expected or required to be given for this purpose as it is legally impermissible.

(iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

(iv) Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible.

(v) Neither the qualifications of the applicant (dependent family member) nor the post held by the deceased or medically retired Government servant is relevant. If the applicant finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.

(vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

(viii). Compassionate appointment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis”.

In the instant case nothing such exigency has been substantiated at this belated stage, hence all other contentions raised regarding legitimacy of adoption or any other deed, which supports the claim of the applicant as being related to the deceased, are irrelevant and considering above facts, I do not find any ground to accede to the prayer of the applicant and to interfere with the order of the respondents. If the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) is examined, it is very clear that it is a long speaking order and contains relevant facts and appears to be just and proper in the case. No malafide is also evident as the respondents have patiently facilitated the case of the applicant as well the wife of the deceased for compassionate appointment. Hence, there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 and the instant OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the original application is dismissed. And all associated MAs stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.