AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“i)An order or direction quashing the order dated 28.8.2024 passed by the Respondent no.3 (Annexure no.1 to compilation no.1).
ii) An order or direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant on its own merit and grant her appointment on compassionate ground considering extreme financial destitution of applicant’s family.
iii) Issue any other and further orders or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the circumstances existing in the present case.
iv) Award the cost of the O.A. to the applicant.
Brief facts of this case are that the brother of the applicant who was working as Helper under SSE (C&W)/NCR/GMC/CNB, expired on 07.06.2024 while in service. He was a bachelor and was appointed under LARSGES Scheme. The father of the deceased employee is a retired railway employee. After the death of her brother, the applicant’s father was paid the retirement cum death benefit of the deceased employee. A letter was received from the respondent no.3 asking the father of the applicant to submit the application for compassionate appointment enclosing certain documents. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The applicant herein has challenged the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 vide which case of compassionate appointment after the death of Shri Aryan Singh has been closed on the ground that there is no family member who was dependent on the deceased employee.
Although no one appeared on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call, taking recourse to Rule 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, I have heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh holding authority letter by Shri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant’s father was working under the respondents’ department who retired from service before the actual date of superannuation and requested for appointment to the applicant’s brother namely Aryan Singh under LARSGES Scheme. The applicant’s brother was appointed but died on dated 07.06.2024 during service period itself. He was unmarried. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment and annexure no.2 of the O.A. shows that the respondents sought certain documents from the applicant. Again a letter dated 15.06.2024 was also issued which is annexed as Annexure no.3. Thereafter, the applicant submitted all the documents, but, vide the impugned order, the respondents closed the case of the applicant with the observation that the applicant was not dependent on the income of the deceased employee, hence, she is not a dependent family member of the deceased employee. It is also argued that observation recorded by the respondents in the impugned order is illegal. The applicant has no independent source of income. She was fully dependent on the income of her brother. The father’s terminal benefit as well as the amount after the death of the applicant’s brother were spent in repaying the loan taken from the relatives. Thus, the financial condition of the family despite the pension received by the father of the applicant was penurious. Thus, argued to allow the O.A. setting aside the impugned order with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground.
It has been contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the applicant is the sister of the deceased employee. The deceased employee had been appointed under the LARSGES Scheme and was also appointed but the applicant was not dependent on the income of the deceased employee as the applicant’s father is alive and is receiving pension. It has been pleaded in the counter that a thorough inquiry has been made and the welfare officer has submitted his report and considering the said report, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, the applicant does not come under the category of dependent family member and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The respondents have referred to the RBE No.70/2014 and further argued that the applicant’s case can also not be considered in light of this RBE.
I have considered the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
Before discussing the contention of the parties, it will be useful to quote the provision of RBE No.70/2014 which is as under:-
“As the field units are aware dependent family members for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds means spouse or son [including adopted son] or daughter [including adopted daughter] or brother/ sister in the case of unmarried Government servant, who is fully dependent on the Government servant at the time of death in harness or retired on medical grounds, as the case may be. Further, in terms of para 2 of letter No.E(NG)III-78/RC-1/1. dated 03.02.1981, General Managers can consider for employment of married daughters, if they satisfy themselves that the married daughters will be the bread-winner of the family of the Railway servant concerned. It has also been stipulated vide instructions issued under letter dated 21.11.2001 (RBE No. 224/2001), that the cases of dependent divorced/widowed daughters should also be considered for such appointment as in the case of married daughters subject to the condition that former should have been wholly dependent on the ex-employee at the time of death/medical invalidation of the latter. Existence of a number of instructions as well as the issue of a specific clause of dependency on the ex-Railway employees has been engaging the attention of this office for sometimes. Accordingly, the matter has been reviewed by the Board and it has been decided that it should be left to the discretion of the family concerned in case of death of ex-employee to request for job to either a spouse or any child [whether son or daughter (un-married/married/ divorced/ widowed)] subject to the condition that the concerned child will be bread-winner of the family concerned. Further, for this purpose instructions issued by this Ministry vide letter under RBE No. 22/2014, dated 04.03.2014 be read in the same spirit. However, the dependent of an unmarried male/ unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/ retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment by the Railway at its own level, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent on ex employee on the basis of documents such as inclusion/ declaration of names in the pass Ration card etc. The condition of inclusion in the pass declaration or Ration cards etc. is only a facilitating factor, and not intended to be a respective one. In the absence of any such documentary proof, the actual position regarding the extent of the dependency may be got verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to enquire into the circumstances. The relaxation of time limit permissible in the case of minor children of those employees who in harness would also apply in the case of dependents of those who die as bachelor/spinster. Accordingly Para 2 of Board's instructions No. (NG)-78/RC-1/1, dated 03.02.1981, letter No.(NG)/88/RC-1/Policy, dated 04.09.1996 (RBE No. 79/1996) No.E(NG)/BB/RC-1/1 Policy, dated 02.05.1997 (RBE No. 664/1997), No.ENG/99/RC-1/SE-19, dated 05.08.1999 (RBE No. 165/1999) and E(NG)/2001/RC-1/ER/S, dated 21.11.2001 (RBE No. 224/2001) stand superseded.”
The impugned order is also quoted below for reference:-
उत्तर मध्य रेलवे कार्मिक शाखा कार्यालय, मंडल रेल प्रबंधक प्रयागराज सं.-सीएस/डीपीओ/सीजी/कला-III/S/Closure दिनांक 08.24 श्री नेमी चन्द्र पिता स्व० आर्यन सिंह पता- 127/139 एस ब्लाक साकेत नगर, जिला-कानपुर (उ.प्र.) पिन-208014 मोबाइल नंबर-7499821922 विषय- स्व० आर्यन सिंह, भू.पू. Helper/SSE/C&W/GMC/CNB के अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति का प्रकरण। सन्दर्भ-मण्डल रेल प्रबंधक महोदय का आदेश। *** उपरोक्त विषय एवं सन्दर्भ में अवगत कराना है कि स्व० आर्यन सिंह, भू.पू. Helper/SSE/C&W/GMC/CNB के अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति का प्रकरण सक्षम अधिकारी के समक्ष विचारार्थ प्रस्तुत किया गया, जिस पर सक्षम अधिकारी महोदय के द्वारा स्व० आर्यन सिंह के अनुकम्पा आधार पर नियुक्ति के प्रकरण को परिवार में आश्रित सदस्य के अभाव में बंद कर दिया गया है। सूचनार्थ। (के.एल. जयसवाल) कृते मण्डल रेल प्रबंधक (कार्मिक) उ.म.रे. प्रयागराज प्रतिलिपि- श्री जीतेंद्र कुमार, मुख्य कर्मचारी एवं हित निरीक्षक, को सूचनार्थ।
From the perusal of the record, it is also evident that the welfare officer/inspector has inspected the house of the applicant and has submitted his report vide Annexure No.3 but the respondents have considered this report and only on this basis that after the 7th CPC, the applicant's father is receiving a pension amount of Rs.17650/- + DA, the impugned order has been passed closing the case of the applicant. If the fact disclosed in the impugned order is taken into consideration, it is cryptic and non-speaking. Nothing is mentioned in it about the report submitted by the welfare inspector. The respondents ought to have taken into consideration the fact disclosed by the applicant. If the provision of RBE No.70/2014 is also taken into consideration, nothing is mentioned in it about exclusion of an unmarried sister of the deceased employee from the category of dependent. The authority concerned ought to have analyzed whether the applicant was dependent on the income of the deceased employee and on his death the financial crisis has occurred in the family or not. Although the order dated 28.08.2024 is an administrative order, it is clarified that an administrative order must also contain reasons. It is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain the reasons. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496], after a detailed analysis of various judgments, has held as follows:
“27.In Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram v. State of Kerala [(1979) 4 SCC 782: AIR 1979 SC 1918] V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held that the functioning of the Board was quasi-judicial in character. One of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is following the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge held that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (see SCC p. 788, para 14 : AIR p. 1922, para 14).
28.In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 197] this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor [(1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : AIR 1974 SC 87], held that “rubber-stamp reason” is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra), SCC p. 854, para 28, to the extent that:
“28.… Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions.” (See AIR p. 377, para 18.)
29.In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt. [(1979) 4 SCC 642 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 16 : AIR 1980 SC 1] while giving the majority judgment Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. referred to (SCC p. 658, para 29) Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edn., p. 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows:
“Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.”
30.The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that : (H.H. Shri Swamiji case [(1979) 4 SCC 642 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 16 : AIR 1980 SC 1] , SCC p. 658, para 29) “29. … ‘reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself’.” (See AIR p. 11, para 29.) ………
33.In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. [(1990) 3 SCC 280] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in the present day set-up judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day and the State has to justify its action in various fields of public law. All these necessitate recording of reason for executive actions including the rejection of the highest offer. This Court held that disclosure of reasons in matters of such rejection provides an opportunity for an objective review both by superior administrative heads and for judicial process and opined that such reasons should be communicated unless there are specific justifications for not doing so (see SCC pp. 284-85, para 10). ……………
46.The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee [(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR 1990 SC 1984] in SCC p. 602, para 11 : AIR para 11 at p. 1988 of the judgment. This Court held that in the United States the courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as “the courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review”. In S.N. Mukherjee [(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR 1990 SC 1984] this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn. [87 L Ed 626 : 318 US 80 (1942)] and Dunlop v. Bachowski [44 L Ed 2d 377 : 421 US 560 (1974)] in support of its opinion discussed above.
47.Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a)In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b)A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c)Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d)Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e)Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f)Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasijudicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g)Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h)The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i)Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j)Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k)If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l)Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decisionmaking process.
(m)It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37]).
(n)Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.
(o)In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.”
Since the reasons have not been assigned in the impugned order, it is cryptic and has not been passed considering the guidelines laid down on the subject from time to time. Thus, the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly as per the rules and guidelines on this subject as well as the observations made hereinabove in the next CRC meeting to be held for the purpose and decide the case of the applicant on the basis of relative merit points to be awarded as per a fresh and thorough investigation report of the welfare inspector.
Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.