Sneh Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)

I have joined this Bench online through video conferencing.

Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma holding brief of Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

In the present OA the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“i. To issue a writ, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order no. A-134/Relax/Place Mainpur dated 08.05.2020 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. A-9 of compilation No. I).

ii. To issue a direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment as per notification No. 17-39/6/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure No. A-10 of OA) which was applicable on 11.05.2017 date of giving first application for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father.

iii. To issue a directing in nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per clause (iii)(2) of notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure No. A-11 of OA).

iv. To issue a direction in nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to produce the letter no. Bharti/M-8/Ruling/Chap-11/10 dated 31.07.2019 before the court which has been supplied to the applicant along with the impugned rejection order dated 08.05.2020.

v. To issue an order or direction as deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. To award cost to the applicant.”

The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant died on 22.03.2017 and the mother of the applicant had for seeking compassionate appointment of her son i.e. the present applicant on compassionate ground. The said application was duly considered by the respondents and rejected. The learned counsel or the applicant submits that vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 27.02.2020 in OA No. 330/160/2020 this Tribunal has passed the following order:-

“Heard Shri N.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri L.P. Tiwari, counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant will be satisfied if respondent No. 5 /competent authority is directed to decide the representation dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure A-2) within a time frame.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal directs the respondent no. 5/competent authority to decide the representation dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure A-2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order by way of speaking and reasoned order with intimation to the applicant.

It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case.

With this direction, the OA stands disposed off. No order as to Costs.”

The short controversy arisen in this OA are that whether the notification dated 08.03.2019 whereby the eligibility criteria for engagement to the post of Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) was amended shall be applicable in the case of the applicant as the father of the applicant died in 2017, he has sought compassionate appointment thereafter, but his case was considered in the amended eligibility criterion.

The learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canera Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 260/2008) dated 15.05.2015. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

“13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent‟s father died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme „Dying in Harness Scheme‟ dated 8.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent‟s claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellant-bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent‟s employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur‟s case, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993.

…..

……

16…….

Considering the scope of the Scheme „Dying in Harness Scheme 1993‟ then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.

….

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant-bank are dismissed and the appellant bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the concerned employee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.”

I feel that the case of the applicant is fully covered by the judgment referred to by the applicant. It is seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly mentioned that the scheme at the time of the death of the concerned employee shall be applicable to consider the cases of compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, this OA is allowed and with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per the conditions stipulated by OM dated 14.01.2015 (annexed at page 46 to the OA), Further the respondents shall consider the case of the applicant as and when the committee for consideration of cases for compassionate appointment meets in future. The outcome of the same shall be intimated to the applicant within a period of two months thereafter. No costs.