Anuj Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The father of the applicant was working as Branch Postmaster at Branch Post Office Veersinghpur, Shahjahanpur and died in harness on 25.01.2016 after serving from 01.05.1991. After his death, the family was left without any regular source of income. The applicant's mother is an old and illiterate lady and there was no other earning member in the family. The applicant, being a graduate and unemployed, applied for compassionate appointment. She furnished the required documents, affidavits and consents of her mother and sisters in support of her claim. However, her claim was rejected on 12.09.2018 on the ground that the consents had allegedly been obtained by providing some consideration and the case was treated as suspicious. The applicant submitted representations along with fresh affidavits, but her claim was not considered properly. She therefore filed O.A. No. 1271 of 2018, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the respondents again rejected her claim by order dated 13/15.04.2019 without properly considering the fresh affidavits and documents submitted by her. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief for compassionate appointment.

Per contra, the respondents have filed its counter affidavit stating therein that the applicant, Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma, is the son of late Shri Ram Narayan Sharma, who was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM) at Birsinghpur, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur Division and died on 25.01.2016. After his death, the applicant's mother submitted an application dated 26.02.2016 proposing the applicant for compassionate engagement. The respondents thereafter required the applicant to submit the prescribed application along with the necessary documents and certificates. The applicant did not furnish the required documents within the prescribed time. Subsequently, his case was forwarded to the competent authorities for consideration. The case was considered in the CCE meeting and was not recommended on the ground that the consents submitted by the applicant appeared to have been obtained by providing some consideration and, therefore, the case was treated as suspicious. Accordingly, the applicant was informed about rejection of his claim vide order dated 12.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said decision, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1271 of 2018 before this Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of on 30.11.2018 with a direction to the competent authority to consider the applicant's representation dated 06.11.2018 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the said order, the competent authority considered the representation of the applicant along with the relevant documents and found that the observations made by the CCE were correct. It was found that the consents of the applicant's mother and three sisters had been obtained by providing consideration. Accordingly, the applicant's representation was rejected by order dated 13/15.04.2019, which was communicated to him on 01.05.2019. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is eligible for compassionate engagement and his father died in harness on 25.01.2016. After his death, the family was left without any regular source of income and the applicant's mother is an old and illiterate lady. The applicant, being a graduate and unemployed, applied for compassionate appointment and furnished the required documents, affidavits and consents of his mother and sisters. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant's claim was rejected on the ground that the consents had allegedly been obtained by providing some consideration. However, no proper enquiry or verification was conducted by the respondents in this regard. The applicant submitted fresh affidavits and representations explaining the position, but the same were not properly considered. It was further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in O.A. No. 1271 of 2018, the respondents were required to consider the applicant's representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, the subsequent order dated 13/15.04.2019 was again passed mechanically without properly considering the fresh affidavits and other relevant documents. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and non-speaking. He prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the applicant's case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and scheme.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's case was duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable scheme for compassionate appointment. After the death of the applicant's father, his mother proposed the applicant for compassionate appointment, but the applicant did not furnish the required documents within the prescribed time. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the case was thereafter placed before the competent authority/CCE for consideration. On examination of the documents submitted by the applicant, it was found that the consents of his mother and three sisters had been obtained by providing some consideration. The case was, therefore, treated as suspicious and was not recommended for compassionate appointment. It was further submitted that the applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 1271 of 2018, which was disposed of on 30.11.2018 with a direction to consider his representation dated 06.11.2018 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the said order, the competent authority considered the representation and all relevant documents and found that there was no merit in the applicant's claim. Accordingly, the representation was rejected by order dated 13/15.04.2019. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's case had been duly considered by the competent authority and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. The Original Application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the record.

In the present case, it is evident from the impugned order that the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was rejected mainly on the ground that the other family members have given their consent after receiving some consideration. In my considered view, this ground alone cannot be sufficient for rejecting the claim of the applicant. After the death of an employee, the family members may receive terminal benefits or family pension as per their entitlement. Where there are more than one eligible family members, other family members give their consent in favour of one member for consideration of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the fact that the other family members have given their consent in favour of the applicant receiving money cannot, by itself, make the case suspicious.

In the present case, it is also evident from the record that initially the fact of giving some amount was mentioned in the consent affidavits. Subsequently, the family members submitted fresh affidavits denying the said fact and supporting the claim of the applicant. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have properly examined and verified the subsequent affidavits for consideration of the claim of the applicant. The respondents have not shown that any proper enquiry or verification was conducted in this regard. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/15.04.2019 is quashed. The responde0nts are directed to reconsider the applicant's case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and scheme, after considering the fresh affidavits and other relevant documents submitted by the applicant. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that other family members may be directed to appear before the authority concerned to verify the facts disclosed in the subsequent affidavits. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs, if any, stand disposed of.