Rajmati Devi & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

This OA, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is filed seeking relief to direct the respondent No. 2 to appoint the applicant No. 2 on compassionate ground in place of his father, and any other relief which this Tribunal may deed fit and proper and award cost.

The fact of the case is that father of the applicant was employed as casual labour in construction organization under respondent No. 2 and got temporary status in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. He worked from 16.06.1982 to 15.10.1983, and 16.01.1985 to 15.09.1985. The respondents in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court had published and maintained the live casual register including the names of all the projects casual labourers and the names of all the applicants find place in the same. Consequent upon the aforesaid development the respondent General Manager has decided to fill up the vacancies of Group ‘D’ amongst the ex casual labourers existing in the roll of the North Eastern Railway. In the mid of 2008, the respondent No. 2 has issued letters to large number of ex casual labourers on the roll regarding their screening and absorption in the department including the father of the applicant. After Railway Board order, the regularization of late Vinod Kumar was considered and he was called for screening vide letter dated 25.04.2008. While he was not offered appointment and in the meantime the father of the applicant died on 20.02.2018. The other candidates who were similarly situated have also considered for regularization alongwith the father of the applicant and their screening was also conducted by respondent No. 2. The Hon’ble High Court and this Tribunal has passed order for their reinstatement in service. Consequently, they have been taken back in the service vide order dated 11.09.2018. Since, the father of the applicant No. 2 has died he could not be offered appointment being a similarly situated person and therefore, in place of him applicant No. 2 may be offered appointment to any post on compassionate ground.

Respondents have put forward their case orally saying that there is no maintainability in this case as father of the applicant No.2 was not in service and he has not been regularized, so they are trying to claim imaginary benefit and they are not aggrieved person. As the judgment of constitution Bench in Writ Petition No. 18164 of 2013 decided on 30.09.2013, the applicant cannot come within the definition of person aggrieved, hence, there is no locus standi to knock the door of the Tribunal under compassionate appointment.

At the stage of arguments of learned counsel for the applicants that the order in OA No. 616 of 2021 dated 01.11.2022 that his case is similar and similar order should be passed. From the very appearance of the order it is based on request to given a direction to consider the application of the applicant’s in that dated 15.03.2021 by way of reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months. Facts and circumstances of that case is not before me, neither the said order is on merit, hence, it is not relevant for this particular case.

From the averments from the applicants themselves it is very clear that in their case father of the applicant died before he was regularized and he states that the father of the applicant was working as casual labour from 16.06.1982 to 15.10.1983, and further from 16.01.1985 to 15.09.1985. Beyond these facts nothing specific is coming out of the pleadings which are relevant as clearly the deceased father of the applicant was not regularized and not a Government employee who is eligible for the benefit of dying in harness. There is no preliminary ground to consider the applicants as in way even remotely eligible to apply for compassionate appointment. Hence, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is not found maintainable. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.