Shanti M. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Sunil Thomas, Member (J)

The first applicant is the widow of one late T. Ambrose, who died on 8.1.2017, while in service under the 4th respondent, Southern Railway. The 2nd applicant is the son of T. Ambrose born in the matrimonial relationship with the first applicant. Consequent to the death of T. Ambrose, first applicant applied for compassionate appointment. It was rejected by Annexure A1 order. It was followed by Annexures A2 and A4 representations, which were rejected by Annexures A3 and A5 orders respectively. Contending that the rejection was without appreciation of entire facts and in violation of Constitutional Rights of the applicant, this OA has been filed. The reliefs sought were to quash Annexures A1, A3 and A5 orders and to direct the respondents to consider the 2nd applicant for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Annexures A1, A3 and A5 orders of rejection indicate that the request for compassionate appointment was rejected on specific grounds. In Annexure A1 it was stated that consequent to the death of T. Ambrose, terminal benefits were paid to the applicants quantified at about Rs. 27,00,000/-. The wife was entitled for enhanced pension of Rs. 23,800/-up to 7.1.2017 and thereafter, ordinary family pension of Rs. 14,280/- along with normal revision. They had a house, which was a concreted one and worth amounting Rs. 12,00,000/-. The son had completed 27 years of age and was a graduate and was not dependent on the 1st applicant.

Challenging the above findings, it was contended by the applicants that the terminal benefits paid to the family could not be a ground for denying compassionate appointment. Such a consideration was illegal, since every employee who had rendered 25 to 30 years of service would get some amount, which would not be sufficient to tide over the consequences due to the sudden death of the only earning member. The existence of a small house in 2 cents of property with 800 sq. mtr. area, was not a valid reason for rejecting compassionate appointment. This was no rule that the dependent who has crossed 25 years of age was not entitled for compassionate appointment. It was further contended that the applicants were not given a reasonable opportunity to contest the proceedings.

The respondents in their reply statement had contended that there was considerable delay in moving the Original Application. It was stated that the death of T. Ambrose took place on 8.1.2017. The instant application ought to have been filed on 7.1.2018. However, it was filed only on 28.11.2019 and there was a delay of 505 days.

It is pertinent to note that immediately on the death of T. Ambrose, an application was submitted for compassionate appointment which was rejected on 16.10.2017 evidenced by Annexure A1. Within few months Annexure A2 representation was submitted on 28.12.2017 which was also dismissed by Annexure A3 dated 18.1.2018. It was successively followed by Annexure A4 representation dated 18.6.2018, which was rejected by Annexure A5 dated 3.8.2018. The OA was filed on 6.12.2019. These facts clearly show that the applicants have been diligently pursuing the matter and delay, if at all, does not appear to be material.

Yet another contention advanced by the respondents was that no part of the cause of action arose within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction and hence, the OA was not maintainable. It was contended that the deceased was posted in Tamil Nadu. His family was settled in Tamil Nadu. Hence, no part of the cause of action arose within Kerala. It was clarified by the applicants that the place of employment of the deceased fall within the Trivandrum Division, over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction. This contention of the learned counsel for the applicants appears to be attractive and hence, I am inclined to hold that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Original Application and it is accordingly maintainable.

One of the grounds on which the application was rejected was that the 2nd applicant was about 29 years old and consequently, he was not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment. To substantiate it, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the definition of family provided in Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 wherein family included a son or sons who have not attained the age of 21 years of old unless he fall within the category of persons mentioned therein. It was hence stated that the 2nd applicant has crossed the age of 21 years and hence, not entitled for the benefit. Though this rule may not be the appropriate Rule to be followed in the case of compassionate appointment, there are materials available on record which shows that though a specific age is not prescribed under the scheme, it is stated that the applicants should fulfill the conditions of eligibility regarding age and educational qualifications. The learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the master circular RBE No. 218/1987, which provides for relaxation. The above circular provides that upper age limit may be freely relaxed on merits of the case. Accordingly, though power is given to the competent authority to relax the upper age limit, that can only be on merits of the case. In other words, age relaxation, if at all possible, can only be in a situation wherein the application deserves to be considered on merit or otherwise.

In the above background, the claim of the applicants had to be considered. Though the learned counsel for the applicants vehemently contended that the terminal benefits cannot be a ground for refusing the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, definitely it has to be considered in the background of the scheme or the Act. It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions including in Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam [Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006, dated 5.4.2011] that 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 and 16 of the Constitution. It has also been held that the very object of granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the difficult situation faced by the family, immediately consequent to the death of the sole earning member. Hence, the financial benefits accrued at the time of death of the earning member plays a significant role since the essential feature of compassionate appointment is the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant, in order to relive them from economic distress. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the terminal benefits accrued to the applicants cannot be taken into consideration.

Though the learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants had several debts to be discharged, there is absolutely nothing on record to establish that. It is also to be noted that consequent to the death of the deceased, pension was paid to the 1st applicant. It has come on record that the earlier take home income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/-. Now the pension paid was around Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the financial loss, does not appear to be substantial. The OM issued by the DoP&T dated 26.6.2012 had indicated that the very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family has some dependable means of subsistence. It was eventually held that when the eligibility of one applicant is considered, that has to be evaluated as against better claims and the benefits should be given only to the deserving person.

Analyzing the entire facts from this perspective, I am of the view that the materials available on record do not indicate that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents while passing Annexure A1 is either irrelevant or without proper consideration of the available materials on record. The materials on record clearly indicate that the claim of absolute penury as claimed by the applicants does not appear to be sustainable. I find no reason to interfere with Annexures A1, A3 and A5 orders and grant relief to the applicants as prayed for. The Original Application fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.