AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–
“A. To set aside the order passed by Director (MOC PG) Department of Telecommunications, Room no 605, 6t floor Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhjwan Near Zakir Husain College, old Minto Road New Delhi rejected the application of applicant vide order dated 27.3.2025 on the ground that B.S.N.L. company, no Ltr, no B.S.N.L. Co-A/15 (27)/1/2022- ESTAB dated 7.3.2022, the compassionate ground appointment (CGA) is kept in abeyance till further orders due to stressed financial condition of the company, hence the request cannot be considered at present. Hence the case is disposed of, is passed without application of mind as well as against principle of natural justice and discriminatory.
B. To issue an order or direction to the opposite parties to consider the application of the applicants and allow her to join and continue in service as other applicants have been given.
C. To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. To award the cost of the application to the applicant”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present O.A. has been filed seeking compassionate appointment by challenging the order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the applicant’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that, in terms of the policy decision communicated vide BSNL letter dated 07.03.2022, appointment on compassionate grounds had been kept in abeyance till further orders. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the daughter of late Vijay Kumar Sharma and had submitted an application for compassionate appointment following the sad demise of her father on 25.06.2016. However, her claim has not been considered by the respondents. It is further submitted that the respondents have relied upon the aforesaid policy decision dated 07.03.2022, whereby compassionate appointments have been kept in abeyance till further orders. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in similar circumstances, this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Court have passed orders directing consideration of claims for compassionate appointment as and when the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment is revived by the respondent Department. He, therefore, seeks a similar direction to be issued to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, after the corporatization of BSNL and keeping in view its financial position, compassionate appointments have been kept in abeyance till further orders. Therefore, the relief sought by the applicant challenging the aforesaid policy decision is not tenable. He further submits that the case of the applicant had earlier been considered by the Committee in the year 2017 but was not recommended for compassionate appointment. The applicant had secured only 37 points and, consequently, her case was not recommended against the limited vacancies available for compassionate appointment.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Tribunal finds that the O.A., insofar as it challenges the policy decision dated 07.03.2022 issued by respondent No. 2, is not maintainable. However, having regard to the various orders passed by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court in similar matters, this Tribunal is of the opinion to dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment afresh, as and when the scheme for compassionate appointment is revived by BSNL, in accordance with the extant rules and policy applicable at the relevant time.
Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above-mentioned directions.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.
All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.