Agra P. Thankachan vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. P. Madhavan, Judicial Member -

The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

The facts in short is as follows: The applicant's father Mr. P.P. Thankachan was working as Postman under the respondents and owing to the medical reasons he was given a posting as Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor (GDSSV). Her father suffered from stroke while on duty and he was paralyzed and retired from service on 30.11.2016 on medical grounds after 36 years of service. A true copy of the relieving order is produced as Annexure A1. In the meanwhile, the applicant was allowed to work in the post of father during his leave periods and after his discharge she was given temporary appointment in the said vacancy during several spells. The applicant is qualified to be permanently appointed in the post of GDSSV. When she came to understand the availability of the scheme for compassionate appointment she submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the existing vacancy. There occurred much delay in disposing of the said application for compassionate appointment and the applicant had submitted a representation on 19.03.2018 to the second respondent which is produced as Annexure A2. However, the applicant did not get any reply and she was compelled to file O.A. No. 617/2018 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal on filing the above case directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation and pass a speaking order, the order of the Tribunal is Annexure A3. Later, the 2nd respondent had disposed of the representation as per the impugned order at Annexure A4. The respondents had rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that medically invalidated Gramin Dak Sevaks are not covered under the available scheme for compassionate appointment. The applicant is challenging Annexure A4 order as arbitrary and illegal.

The respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed reply denying the allegations made in the O.A. They admitted that the father of the applicant was permitted to be discharged from engagement with effect from 01.12.2016 on medical grounds. They also admitted that the applicant was also engaged on stop-gap arrangement. The applicant in this case had filed an application for appointment on 12.05.2017. However, the above application was returned to the Postmaster, Vaikom Post Office for re- submission along with certain documents. Even though the applicant had resubmitted the application on 21.03.2018 she had not included the sufficient copies and the defects continued to be there and the applicant was directed to submit a revised application form in the prescribed proforma on 24.04.2018. Again she was reminded to file the application on 19.07.2018. Ultimately the applicant filed the application on 02.08.2018 after curing all defects. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that her application was not properly considered and disposed of in time. Immediately after getting the application for appointment, she filed O.A. 617/2018 before the Tribunal and an order was obtained directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. The respondents in obedience to the said order had issued a detailed speaking order as Annexure A4. According to them as per the Government of India instructions, Gramin Dak Sevaks will not come under the Civil Service and they cannot claim all the benefits of civil service. Medically invalidated Gramin Dak Sevaks are not covered under the compassionate appointment scheme prevailing in the department. The applicant was engaged as a substitute for various spells and it will not give her any right for granting compassionate appointment. According to them the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 30.05.2017 is applicable only to a dependent family member of a regularly selected and engaged Gramin Dak Sevak who dies while in service. It is specifically stated in the GDS(Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011, that a person holding the post of GDS on regular basis shall be deemed to have been engaged to and hold the post of GDS in accordance with the provisions of these rules. A Sevak shall be outside the civil service. A Sevak shall not claim to be at par with Central Government Employees. It is also categorically stated that a GDS should have some other source of livelihood at the time of engagement as per rule 3-A(3(i)) of GDS Rules 2011 The maximum hours of engagement is also limited to 5 hours. The revised scheme for compassionate appointment issued on 30.05.2017 is applicable to an eligible dependent member of deceased GDS. So, according to the respondents, applicant is not at all eligible for getting compassionate appointment as claimed by her.

We have gone through the pleadings and various documents produced by the applicant as well as respondents. The main contention put forward by the applicant in this case is that in an earlier case disposed of by this Tribunal in OA 380/2007, this Tribunal has held that the benefit of employment assistance on compassionate ground should be given to extra departmental agents also who were prematurely discharged on medical invalidation. It was also contended that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in 2018 and the counsel appearing for her stated that there is no scope for proceeding with the matter and she was in confusion whether to file a case or not. Again she had discussed this matter with many advocates regarding the feasibility and benefits that may arise by filing an OA against the scheme. Thereafter, in the month of March 2020 lockdown was declared throughout the country and she could not approach the courts due to the pandemic. Therefore she seeks condonation of the delay that had occurred in this case.

The counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposed the contention of the applicant that he was precluded from approaching the court due to the pandemic situation and according to him the impugned order was passed in the month of May 2017 and the applicant was expected to file the case by May 2018. However, this has not happened and there is no sufficient reason for condoning the delay.

On a reading of the MA filed for condonation of delay and the pleadings put forward by the applicant, we find that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the reason for occuring the delay and we found it sufficient to condone the delay of 764 days and accordingly MA No. 180/724/2020 for condonation of delay will stand allowed. As regards the OA, we find that the applicant's father was working as GDSSV at Vaikom Post Office and owing to his medical conditions he had to be discharged from service as per Annexure A1 order dated 30.11.2016. It is specifically submitted that Shri P.P. Thankachan, father of the applicant was discharged from his employment as GDSSV at Vaikom from 01.12.2016 forenoon onwards on medical grounds. The applicant in this case had given a detailed representation seeking compassionate appointment and the same was disposed of by the respondents as per Annexure-A4 order. According to them, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds with respect to the GDS discharged on medical invalidation. The Ministry of Communication had reviewed the above scheme but they had not recommended the inclusion of persons who are medically discharged from service. The applicant has filed an application for compassionate appointment only on 12.05.2017 that is one year after the discharge of the applicant from service. The applicant was thereafter permitted to continue as GDSSV for short spells and this will not give her any priority in eligibility for compassionate appointment as per the scheme in existence in the department. Annexure A5 shows that it is a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of GDS dying while in service and to relieve the family from financial destitution. The scheme is drawn up considering various aspects of the engagement and there is no provision seen in the scheme to grant compassionate appointment to those persons who are medically discharged from service as in the case of the applicant's father. So, the scheme as such is not applicable to the case of applicant. The compassionate appointment scheme does not give any aforesaid right to any applicant for getting an employment. In Canara Bank & another v Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015(7) SCC 412, it is held that compassionate appointment should be considered on the basis of the scheme which is in vogue at the time of death of the employee, in this case when the applicant was medically decategorised, there is no provision for considering compassionate appointment to his dependent family members. When there is no scheme as such for granting compassionate appointment it is difficult to direct the respondents to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment. The counsel for the applicant merely relies upon an earlier case disposed of by this Tribunal in K.J Raghav v Union of India and another OA 220/1998 wherein a similar question was considered. But on going through the said judgment we find that the scheme in existence at the time of the above OA was not the same which was in existence at present when the applicant's father was discharged from service. So, the above decision cannot be squarely applied to the present case. It is the policy of the Government to decide whether a particular category of employee has to be given compassionate appointment or not as per scheme for dying in harness. So we find that the claim put forward by the applicant has no merit and she is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.

The Original Application stands dismissed as above. No order as to costs.