Shubham Kumar vs Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Head Quarter/Office, Gorakhpur, U.P. & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :-

(i) That the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad may graciously be pleased to set aside the letter/decision dated 14.08.2019 sent by the Public Information Officer/Senior Divisional Karmik Officer, N.E. Railway, refusing the claim of the applicant in not registering his application before completing the age of 18 years (Annexure A to the compilation No.1 of the original application).

(ii) Further the present application is being filed by the applicant for making the payment of dues of her mother, Kavitri Devi (who adopted the applicant) wife Late Sukhdeo Prasad to the applicant forthwith with interest.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Cost of the application may also be allowed”.

The brief facts of the case are that one class Helper (Khalasi), Late Sukhdeo Prasad, who was employed in the North Eastern Railway, Mau Junction, died in harness on 08.09.2012, leaving behind his widow named Smt. Kavitri Devi. After the death of deceased employee Sukhdeo Prasad, Smt. Kavitri Devi applied for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules through her application dated 13.03.2013. Respondent No. 4 sent an appointment letter dated 11.11.2013 for appointing Kavitri Devi widow of Late Sukhdeo Prasad. On 27.11.2013, Smt. Kavitri Devi widow of Late Sukhdeo Prasad executed a registered adoption deed in favour of applicant. After the execution of registered adoption deed, Smt. Kavitri Devi appeared before the Medical Board on 03.12.2013. Smt. Kavitri Devi was found medically fit. However, Smt. Kavitri Devi died before she could join the post. On 18.08.2017, applicant sent an application to respondent No.2 for making the payment of post retiral dues of Smt. Kavitri Devi. Again applicant sent an application dated 01.03.2019 to respondent No.2 for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules before completing the age limit of applicant and further to make payment of pension of his father Late Sukhdeo Prasad. When no action was taken by the respondent No.2, applicant filed present OA seeking to appointment under Dying in Harness

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although adoption deed was executed on dated 27.11.2013 after the death of deceased employee yet applicant shall be deemed to be a dependent member of family of deceased employee- Late Sukhdeo Prasad. It is also submitted that on death of Late Sukhdeo Prasad, his wife Smt. Kavitri Devi had applied for compassionate appointment. Appointment letter in her favour was issued on 11.11.2012 but she did not join and died on 25.1.2014. It is argued that before her death, she has executed the adoption deed on 27.11.2013 in which applicant was adopted. Thus, applicant became family member of deceased employee as it would be clear from the adoption deed. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the adoption deed annexed with the OA and further argued that since Smt. Kavitri Devi did not join duty against appointment letter issued by the respondents, therefore, applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment on the death of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad). It is also argued that applicant was minor aged about 5 years at the time of death of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad). He moved application in the year 2019 in view of 2.09 of Guidelines regarding the process of appointment on compassionate ground for registration of the application but respondents have rejected the prayer vide order dated 14.08.2019 illegally observing that applicant was not dependent on the family of the deceased employee. One appointment had already been made of Smt. Kavitri Devi, thus second appointment on the same ground cannot be given. Referring to the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 and aforesaid fact, it was further argued that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily observed aforesaid observation that applicant shall be deemed to be the family member of the deceased employee, thus respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment on death of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad). Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the entire documents in support of his argument annexed with the OA.

In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on para 4.08 of the Guidelines and argued that one appointment has already been made against the death of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad) to his wife Smt Kavitiri on compassionate ground. Thus, there is no provision to give second appointment to the family member. It is also argued that neither deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad) nor the Smt. Kavitri Devi had disclosed the name of the applicant in his application nor service book as family member. Adoption deed was executed after issuance of appointment in favour of Smt. Kavitri Devi (wife of deceased employee). Since there is nothing in the service record nor in the application form for compassionate appointment moved by Smt. Kavitri Devi regarding the existence of the applicant as family member. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Thus prayer was made to dismiss the OA.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.

From the perusal of record, it is admitted fact that Late Kavitri Devi has executed an adoption deed in favour of applicant before joining the job but it is also admitted fact that neither the service book of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo) nor any application, the name of applicant has been mentioned as family member. Section 17 (3) of the Registration Act requires that a deed of adoption be compulsorily registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 also mandates that all adoptions are to be registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 is reproduced below for a ready reference:-

"(2) In case of an adoption made on or after the 1st day of January, 1977 no court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any evidence in proof of the giving and taking of the child in adoption, except a document recording an adoption, made and signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, and registered under any law for the time being in force:

Provided that secondary evidence of such document shall be admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.".

It is undisputed fact that adoption deed was registered in the year 2013 i.e. after the death of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad). It is also not disputed that when deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad) died, applicant has not shown in the category of dependent in the service record. When offer of appointment was given to Smt. Kavitri Devi widow of deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad), adoption deed has been executed. Thus, it can safely be inferred that in nowhere applicant can be taken as the dependent of deceased employee.

The well settled legal position with regard to compassionate appointment is that a compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right but rather it is to be granted on a consideration of the financial distress and hardship being faced by the family of the deceased employee and in order to grant succor and immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee.

The deceased employee Late Sukhdeo Prasad died in the year 2012 and if the family has been able to survive for 12 years after the death of the bread winner of the family, the sense of immediacy to tide over the financial crises no longer remain. It is seen from the perusal of record that when Smt. Kavitri Devi was declared medically fit and ready to join the post, she executed an adoption deed in favour of the applicant and after adoption deed was executed, she died. It is also notable that Smt. Kavitri Devi was offered appointment on compassionate ground and as per Rule 2.08 of the aforesaid guidelines, it is strictly prohibited to offer appointment more than one time after the death of employee. It is relevant to mention here that applicant is not dependent on the deceased employee (Late Sukhdeo Prasad). As per rules, the compassionate appointment is permissible to the dependent ward of a deceased employee, whereas all the facts mentioned above fully establish that applicant was never a dependent of the deceased employee Late Sukhdeo Prasad.

In view of the observations mentioned above, I find that the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.