AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dt. 17.04.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench in O.A No. 051/00626/2022.
The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the action of the Steel Authority of India Limited in rejecting his prayer for compassionate appointment through an order of 26.09.2022.
The petitioner’s mother was a permanent employee of the said company at its Refractory unit, Ramgarh. She appears to have contracted the disease of Tuberculosis and she was initially admitted in a local hospital in Ramgarh on 08.05.2020 and later she was referred by the employer to the Bhagwan Mahavir Medical Super Specialty Hospital, Ranchi on 11.05.2020. Unfortunately, she expired on 12.05.2020.
Contending that during her lifetime she had sent an application on 09.05.2020 to respondent no.5 stating that she was weak and unable to move and not in a position to render services, and the petitioner should be appointed in her place, the petitioner submitted another application to the respondents for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment (Annexure-2) framed by the said company.
The respondents rejected his application for compassionate appointment initially on 14.07.2020 on the ground that his case for grant of compassionate was not covered under the rules/guidelines of the company.
The petitioner then filed O.A No. 290 of 2021 which was disposed of on 24.03.2021 directing the respondents to consider his case within three months by taking note of a judgment of this Court in Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order on 26.09.2022 holding that the petitioner’s case was not on the same footing as in the said writ petition and the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
Before the Tribunal, the petitioner reiterated his contention that his mother had sent an application on 09.05.2020 during her lifetime to the respondent no.5 seeking employment to the petitioner on the ground of medical invalidation.
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A recording a finding that the petitioner could not produce any material to support his contention that his mother made an application on 09.05.2020 seeking employment to the petitioner on her medical invalidation.
Assailing the same this writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect and that the order of the Tribunal warrants interference by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents supported the decision of the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show to this Court any material evidencing submission of the application dt. 09.05.2020 by his mother to the respondents seeking employment to the petitioner on her medical invalidation.
Therefore, there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Even with regard to regular compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the death of the employee should arise out of and in the course of employment (Clause 5.2.1).
Since the disease of Tuberculosis with which the petitioner’s mother was suffering cannot be said to be arising out of or in the course of her employment with the employer, under this category also the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.
We therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.