Chunni Lal vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned communication dated 12.01.2015 and a direction to the respondents for his appointment in Group ‘D’ service on compassionate grounds in terms of the applicable Railway Board orders. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that the applicant is the son of Late Harangi Lal, who was working as a Commission Vendor under the Railways and died on 09.05.2005 while rendering his services at Kanpur Central Railway Station. After his death, the applicant sought appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the policy applicable to the wards/legal heirs of Commission Vendors who died before their absorption in regular Group ‘D’ service. The applicant’s claim was considered by the Railway authorities from time to time and, in the earlier proceedings, directions were issued for consideration of his claim. The applicant has relied upon the Railway Board Orders dated 07.06.2007 and 01.08.2007 governing compassionate appointment in such cases. The applicant contends that the age of his father was recorded in the Railway records as 53 years in 2002, 54 years in 2003 and 55 years in 2004 and, therefore, he could not have been more than 60 years of age on the date of his death. However, the respondents ultimately rejected the applicant’s claim vide communication dated 12.01.2015 on the ground that his father was more than 60 years of age on the date of his death. Aggrieved by the same, the present Original Application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned communication dated 12.01.2015 is legally unsustainable, as the claim of the applicant has been rejected by relying upon an incorrect date of birth of his deceased father, contrary to the records maintained by the Railway authorities themselves. He submitted that the Railway records had consistently indicated the age of Late Harangi Lal as 53 years in 2002, 54 years in 2003 and 55 years in 2004 and, consequently, he could not have been above 60 years of age on 09.05.2005. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant’s father himself had disclosed his date of birth as 08.12.1948, whereas the respondents have relied upon the date of birth as 01.10.1940 without satisfactorily explaining the contrary entries in the Railway records. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant material and is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant’s claim was duly considered in accordance with the applicable scheme and was rightly rejected, since the date of birth of Late Harangi Lal was recorded as 01.10.1940 and, accordingly, he had crossed the prescribed age limit on the date of his death, i.e. 09.05.2005. Learned counsel submitted that the said date of birth was ascertainable from the relevant record, particularly the ration card, according to which Late Harangi Lal was born in the year 1940 and was 64 years of age on the date of his death. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicant was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and that the impugned communication dated 12.01.2015 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Tribunal.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the date of birth of Late Harangi Lal was 01.10.1940 and that the same was supported by the ration card available on record. The respondents have accordingly taken the stand that, on the date of his death on 09.05.2005, Late Harangi Lal was 64 years of age and, therefore, the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was not covered by the applicable scheme. The respondents have further relied upon the departmental communication dated 21/24.09.2010, wherein the year of birth of Late Harangi Lal was stated to be 1940 on the basis of the ration card.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully perused the pleadings and the documents available on record. The matter was heard at the stage of order and direction.

The controversy in the present case essentially revolves around the date of birth/age of Late Harangi Lal on the date of his death. The record shows that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 957 of 2006 and, thereafter, in O.A. No. 1232 of 2014, in which directions were issued to the respondents for consideration of his claim. Thus, the respondents were required to consider the applicant’s claim in the light of the relevant records and the applicable policy. Before examining the controversy involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant Railway Board instructions governing compassionate appointment to the ward/widow/legal heir of a deceased Commission Vendor/Bearer. The applicant has relied upon the Railway Board Orders dated 07.06.2007 and 01.08.2007. However, the relevant portion of the Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)II/2006/RC-1/Genl./1 dated 07.06.2007, which is material for deciding the controversy involved in the present case, is reproduced below:-

In the present case, the principal issue is whether the respondents were justified in treating Late Harangi Lal as having crossed the prescribed age limit on the basis of the date of birth recorded as 01.10.1940, notwithstanding the contrary material available in the Railway records. On examination of the record, I find that the applicant has relied upon an affidavit furnished by Late Harangi Lal, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 08.12.1948. The applicant has also relied upon the contemporaneous medical fitness records maintained by the Railway authorities, wherein his age was recorded as 53 years in 2002, 54 years in 2003 and 55 years in 2004. These entries are consistent with the date of birth asserted by the applicant and are materially inconsistent with the respondents’ stand that his date of birth was 01.10.1940. 9. The respondents, on the other hand, have relied upon the ration card and the communication dated 21/24.09.2010 to contend that the year of birth of Late Harangi Lal was 1940 and that he was 64 years of age on 09.05.2005. However, the respondents have not satisfactorily explained the apparent inconsistency between the said material and the contemporaneous Railway records. In particular, there is nothing in the impugned communication to demonstrate that the Railway records showing his age as 53, 54 and 55 years in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were duly considered and rejected for cogent reasons, which are primary evidence.

It is also significant that, in the earlier proceedings, this Tribunal had required the respondents to produce the documents forming the basis of their assertion regarding the date of birth of Late Harangi Lal as 01.10.1940. The said documents was copy of ration card issued by State Government Official, ignoring their own evidence and relaying state government , ration card for purpose of rejecting the claim for correction in date of birth is not accepted.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the rejection of the applicant’s claim on the basis of the date of birth recorded as 01.10.1940, without satisfactorily dealing with the contrary material available on the Railway records, cannot be sustained. The impugned communication dated 12.01.2015, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and is liable to be set aside.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned communication dated 12.01.2015 is quashed and set aside. The applicant is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the Railway Board policies dated 07.06.2007 and 01.08.2007. Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider the case of the applicant, in accordance with the extant rules governing compassionate appointment as well as the aforesaid policies, after taking into consideration the entire relevant material available on record, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any final opinion on the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to appointment on compassionate grounds, and the competent authority shall take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with the applicable scheme/rules and the material available on record.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.