Shiksha Devi vs Union Of India And Ors

Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the husband of the applicant, late Sh. Fakir Chand was working in the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad since 1992. Department of Personnel and Training (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme, 1993 came into force on 01.09.1993 conferring temporary status to all casual labourers who had been working in the Department of Personnel and Training for at least one year. This Scheme was applicable to all the Departments including Finance Department. Applicant's husband was conferred with temporary status vide order dated 01.07.1997. Along with the said letter, seniority list of casual labourers conferred with temporary status was circulated in which the name of the applicant's husband appeared at serial No. 19.

The applicant states that the respondents had not taken any action to regularize casual labourers with temporary status after 10 years of their service, which was the mandate of law. Due to illness, the applicant's husband died on 02.10.2016. It is submitted that the applicant has six children and has not been paid any GPF or pension. On 10.11.2016, the applicant submitted an application to the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ghaziabad for compassionate appointment for her younger son. Finding no response, the applicant again submitted a representation dated 13.12.2016 for compassionate appointment of her younger son in which she also requested for grant of family pension. Vide letter dated 28.12.2016, the applicant was informed that there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employee working on temporary status. It is submitted that the respondents themselves had not regularized the services of the applicant's husband, due to which the respondents cannot deny their legitimate right of compassionate appointment for her younger son. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the current O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Quash the order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the respondents.

(b) Direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the Applicant's younger son whose family is in hardness, having no source of income.

(c) Pass such other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."

The applicant has relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Babita [WP(C)-10382/2015] dated 04.11.2015.

(ii) Principal Bench of CAT in the case of Babita Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA-1885/2014) dated 29.05.2015.

In reply, the respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the current O.A. since the cause of action arose at Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that the impugned order is legal and has been passed as per the relevant rules and instructions. The respondents state that the applicant's husband was working as temporary status employee as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regulation) Scheme, 1993 and after completion of 10 years he was entitled to be regularized. They further aver that as per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, the definition of Government Servant is, "Government Servant for the purpose of these instructions means a Government Servant appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad hoc or contract or re-employment basis." Hence, they submit that there is no merit in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

On going through the facts of the case, I find that the husband of the applicant was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 01.07.1997. At the time of his unfortunate demise on 02.10.2016, he had not been regularized. Though the applicant states that a person with temporary status is entitled to be regularized after completion of 10 years of service, this averment of the applicant is denied by the respondents stating that there is no rule to this effect. A perusal of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme shows that benefit of this Scheme, is available only to Government servants who have been appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wage or ad hoc basis etc. Since the husband of the applicant was not working on a regular basis, hence the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment as claimed by her. There is no ambiguity in this regard. In view of the same, the O.A. has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.