K. Nalini vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 30 April 2014 in O.A. No.310/00 711/2014, on the file of Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner, challenging the order rejecting her application for compassionate appointment.

Summary of facts:-

The petitioner is the widow of Thiru. Ramesh Chandran, who was an employee of Ordnance Clothing Factory at Avadi. He died on 26 October 2005, while in service. The deceased is survived by the petitioner, her son and daughter. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment to her son. The application was considered by the management and ultimately, it was rejected on the ground that she secured only 43 marks and as such, it is not possible to give her son compassionate appointment. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the petitioner has secured 43 marks only and as such, her son was rightly denied compassionate appointment. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Ordnance Clothing Factory.

Analysis:-

The application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment for her son was rejected solely on the ground that she has secured only 43 marks. Since the second respondent has not produced the details as to how marks were awarded, we directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the records.

We have perused the original records produced by the second respondent.

The application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment to her son was considered by the Appointment Committee. The score sheet shows that the petitioner was given marks for family pension, monthly income, movable property, left over service, number of dependants and number of unmarried daughters and number of minor children. She was given 43 marks in total. However, there is nothing on record to show as to how marks were awarded. The criteria adopted by the Appointment Committee for awarding marks is not found in the file. The appointment committee was expected to consider awarding marks in the light of the scheme.

The petitioner has received a total amount of Rs.3,34,711/- from Ordnance Clothing Factory. She has to repay the loan taken from the Bank for house construction. The details furnished by the committee shows that there is a liability of Rs.6,50,000/-. Though the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit contended that the entire liability was also taken into account for awarding marks, we do not find any marks awarded under that count.

The service benefits received by the family was also taken as a factor to deny compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, , observed thus :

"13.... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family - this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner , but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation."

The respondents have taken cognizance of benefits received by the petitioner and her monthly pension for calculating the weightage marks. However, there was no attempt made to consider the loan amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, payable by the petitioner. The Committee was expected to take note of the positive and negative factors while awarding marks. However, no such attempt was made. We are therefore of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the second respondent.

The second respondent has made it clear that the case of the petitioner would not be considered henceforth on account of limitation. The period of limitation would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner in view of our finding that her application was not considered objectively and in the light of the scheme.

Disposition :-

In the result, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 31 December 2008 and the resultant order passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application for compassionate appointment afresh on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.