Ms. Senjam Leimatombi vs The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur & Anr.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The applicant has filed the instant Original Application (O.A.) challenging the impugned letters dated 14.02.2022 and 06.02.2023 issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the request to change the nominee for compassionate appointment from her eldest sister to herself was turned down, and the baseline application for the panel year 2022 was rejected.

The applicant has sought the following principal reliefs:

Shri N. Anix Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant's father died while working as a Senior Accountant on 20.05.2011, leaving behind four daughters from his deceased first wife, and a second wife (Smt. Senjam Surbala Devi) with a daughter. Because their mother had predeceased the father and the family was in extreme indigence, the eldest sister, Senjam Shantirani Devi, submitted an application to the office of the respondents for compassionate appointment on 13.06.2011. The present applicant was left out at that time as she was completing her final year of M.Sc. in Applied Electronics.

As per the learned counsel, at the time of submission application for compassionate appointment by the eldest sister, applicant was in the final year of her M.Sc. Degree Course in Applied Electronics and as such, the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the eldest sister, Senjam Shantirani Devi. That the submission of claim for compassionate appointment by Senjam Shantirani Devi was a conscious decision taken by the family of the applicant as Senjam Shantirani Devi had completed her graduation by then; moreover, the authorities concerned had assured that the name of the applicant for compassionate appointment can be changed later on. However, despite the extreme indigent condition of the family of the applicant, no compassionate appointment was offered by the office of the respondents for several years. That in the situation, circumstances which necessitated submission for claim of compassionate appointment in favour of Senjam Shantirani Devi gradually changed and as such, a representation dated 20.08.2019 was submitted to the respondent authorities requesting for change of applicant and for giving appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the present applicant (Annexure-A/5). In the meantime, Senjam Shantirani Devi submitted an RTI application dated 04.01.2021 to the Central Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur seeking information pertaining to appointment made under Scheme for Compassionate Appointments since 2011 till 2020. In response thereof, the CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2021 furnished some information, however, certain information pertaining to the minutes/proceedings of Departmental Screening Committee, merit of scores of other candidates, etc. were not furnished (Annexure-A/7). Being aggrieved, Senjam Shantirani Devi preferred an appeal dated 15.03.2021 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur requesting for furnishing the Ieft-out/withheld information (Annexure-A/8). Subsequently, the FAA vide communication dated 07.04.2021advised the CPIO to furnish additional information/documents sought in the Appeal dated 15.03.2021within a period of 10 (ten) days (Annexure-A/9) which was complied with by the CPIO by furnishing the information pertaining to the relevant merit scores as well as minutes of the DSC for the year 2019 and 2020 vide letter dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-A/10), wherefrom, applicant came to know that Senjam Shantirani Devi had been repeatedly underscored in the evaluation of her merit score; and other candidates had been recommended ahead of her in the relevant DSC meetings, even though her application for compassionate appointment had been pending for a long time since 10.06.2011. Moreover, there were also shortfalls in the calculation of vacancy for compassionate appointment for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Said Senjam Shantirani Devi thereafter, submitted another representation dated 01.11.2821 to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur for providing compassionate appointment in favour of the present applicant (Annexure-A/14). Subsequently, impugned Letter dated 14.02.2022 (ANNEXURE –A/1) was issued by the Sr. Deputy Accountant General (A&E), Manipur to Senjam Shantirani Devi wherein it was informed that her case was considered by the DSC held on 29.10.2021 but not recommended. Further it was also informed that in so far the request for change of applicant is concerned, there is no such provision under the Scheme for compassionate appointment, issued vide DoPTs OM dated 16.01.2013 and subsequent FAQs dated 30.05.2013 and, as such, the request was not acceded to. Pursuant thereto, vide Letter dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure-A/13), the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur informed Senjam Shantirani Devi that Smt. Senjam Surbala Devi, second wife of Late Senjam Pishak Singh, Ex-Sr. Accountant, has objected to the consideration of her appointment on compassionate ground.

Learned counsel has fairly contended that after expiry of the applicant's father, the retiral benefits were shared by the four full sisters on one side and Senjam Surbala Devi along with her daughter on the other side, with the latter party receiving the majority share. On the other hand, the monthly family pension is equally shared by both the parties; one-half paid in favour of the four sisters and the other half paid to Senjam Surbala Devi for herself and her daughter. However, in reply to the aforesaid official Letter dated 06.10.2022, Senjam Shantirani Devi submitted a representation dated 1I.10.2022 to the respondent authority stating that the full family pension may be paid in favour of Smt. Senjam Surbala Devi on the condition that the compassionate appointment is given in favour of the present applicant (Annexure-A/14). In the meantime, since Manipur was under severe turmoil since 3^rd May, 2023, applicant could not approach the authorities concerned. Subsequently, she submitted a representation including educational qualifications as well as a No Objection Certificate dated 26.03.2025 of her sister Senjam Shantirani Devi to the respondent authority on 26.03.2025 (Annexure-A/15), But nothing has been done on the said representation. She also visited the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur in the month of May, 2025 to enquire about the status of her application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure-A/2), the respondent authority addressed to Senjam Shantirani Devi stating that her application for appointment on compassionate ground for the panel year 2022 was considered but has been rejected by the competent authority. As per the learned counsel, said impugned rejection letter dated 06.02.2023 was never communicated to the Sanjam Shantirani Devi and the officials also failed to clarify as to whom the said letter dated 06.02.2023 was officially communicated.

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the Departmental Screening Committee held for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground for the panel year 2022 in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur had recommended the applicant's sister, Senjam Shantirani Devi for appointment to the post of DEO Grade-'A'. However, application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in terms of the impugned letter dated 06.02.2023. Hence rejection of the request for change of applicant for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no such provision under the relevant DoPT OMs is malafide and not maintainable in view of the position of law settled in several judgments rendered by the competent of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred the following case laws are relevant: -

Per contra, Sri R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset of his argument, has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the instant O.A. on the ground of delay and latches. As per the learned counsel, this O.A. is hopelessly barred by limitation as two of the main prayers alongwith others as follows:

Section 21 (1) (a) of "The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985" states as follows:

As per the learned counsel for the respondents, out of 3 (three) applicants by relaxing the upper age limit as per DoPT's OM Dated 02/08/2022, name of Km. Senjam Shantirani Devi was recommended by the Departmental Scrutiny Committee (DSC) for approval but the Competent Authority i.e. Office of the C&AG, New Delhi was not considered in terms of Para 9 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Central Govt. Dated 16/01/2013 issued by the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievance and pensions (DoPT) and same was communicated to Km. Shantirani Devi vide letter dated 06/02/2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that compassionate appointment is a concession intended to provide immediate relief to a deceased employee's family, not a vested right. It is an exception to the rule of equal opportunity in public employment, granted only to alleviate sudden financial destitution, not to serve as a routine, inherited privilege. Learned counsel has also referred Paragraph 9 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment which deals with "Belated request for compassionate Appointment.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further pleaded that In terms of OM Dated 02/08/2022 and Paras 14 and 15 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment Dated 16.01.2013, a person appointed on compassionate grounds under the scheme should give an undertaking in writing that he/she will maintain properly all dependent family members of the Government servant and in case it is proved subsequently (at any time) that the family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him/her; his/her appointment may be terminated forthwith. In the instant case, no such Under Taking/Declaration was also provided alongwith the application of Km Senjam Shantirani Devi, eldest daughter of the deceased employee who claimed for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format with a under Para 14 of the DoPT's OM dated 16/01/2013 and dated 02/08/2022.

Sri Talukdar has also contended that as per para 7 (a) of Consolidated Instruction on Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Central Government issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training)'s Office Memorandum No. 14014/01/2022-Estt (D) dated 02.08.2022 [ANNEXURE-R3], there were no such vacancies available (5%) for appointment on compassionate ground. As such, name of Km Shantirani Devi was not considered during the panel years from 2013 to 2018. After the expiry of the deceased employee, there were some disputed between the family members, as such, office requested to submit “No Objection Certificate" of all parties to the appointment of Km Shantirani Devi but they failed to submit, as such, her name could not be placed before the DSC held in the year 2012. Thereafter, no DSC meeting was held during the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as no vacancy was available for appointment on compassionate ground. In the RTI Reply same was also communicated to Km. Shantirani Devi. Finally, in the for the panel year 2019, 2020 and 2021, name of Km Shantirani Devi was included in the list of DSC and the DSC meeting recommended her name for the panel year 2021 however, the Office of the C &AG of India, New Delhi i.e. the Competent Authority had rejected her recommendation in terms of Paragraph 9 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment i.e. Belated Request for Compassionate Appointment and same was communicated to the Office of the Deponent vide Letter dated 20.01.2023 (ΑΝNEXURE R/2 of this WS) Hence, her application for compassionate appointment was closed. Further, learned counsel argued that there is no specific provision for changing of application for compassionate under the scheme of Appointment on Compassionate ground vide DoPT’s OM dated 16.01.2013 and subsequent Notification dated 30.05.2013 and OM dated 02.08.2022. Sri Talukdar has also placed following case law and submitted that after death of the father of the petitioner, the period of nearabout 14 years had already lapsed and compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period.

We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and orders/judgments relied upon.

The solitary issue in this O.A. is to grant Compassionate Appointment to the daughters of Late Senjam Pishak Singh, who was serving as Senior Accountant in the erstwhile Office of the Accountant General, Manipur [Now the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur], who expired on 20.05.2011 while in service. However, same was rejected by the respondent authorities on the plea of ‘Belated Claim’.

From the records, it is evident that immediately after death of Late Sri Senjam Pishak Singh, his eldest daughter namely Senjam Shantirani Devi submitted an application dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-A/4) for appointment on Compassionate Ground as both their parents had expired (Applicant’s mother predeceased on 20.06.2001 before the expiry of her father). Hence, the plea taken by the respondents apropos ‘Belated Claim’ is not tenable in the eyes of law inasmuch as eldest daughter of the deceased had applied for appointment on Compassionate Ground within one month from the death of her father. If there is any procedural delay, Hon’ble Apex Court in so many cases has held that if there is procedural delay on the part of the respondents/Department that cannot be attributed to the employee.

More so, though the second wife of the deceased namely Smti. Senjam Surbala Devi had also made objection on 15.09.2022 opposing the compassionate appointment to the applicant, but subsequently, it was settled down between the Smti. Senjam Surbala Devi and daughters of the deceased Late Sri Senjam Pishak Singh, and after that, application of Km. Senjam Shantirani Devi for appointment on compassionate ground was treated as complete in all respects, which was also admitted by the respondents in their written statement at paragraph 4.

It is also fact that substitution can be done if there is a delay on the part of the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. The Co-ordinate Bench of CAT, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. 655 of 2022 dated 13.01.2025 has held that – rejection of the request for change of Applicant on the ground that there is no such provision in the relevant Rules is illegal.

Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in R. Visoliya Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 186 of 2015), while allowing substitution of applicant for compassionate appointment, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that - the issue as to who amongst the surviving members of the family should seek appointment on compassionate basis is a matter of choice amongst the surviving members of the family but the person so chosen has an obligation to look-after the well being and welfare of the members of the family of the deceased government servant thereafter. It was also further observed that when once the choice rests with the family members, may be, initially a particular family member may have opted or chosen to shoulder all the responsibilities of the family; but if the appointment is not forthcoming immediately in favour of such a chosen person, there can be a change in the consideration of the factors relevant for securing appointment by the family members.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also allowed the change of Applicant for compassionate appointment in its Order dated 12.05.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5216 of 2018. That further, vide Order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Review Application No. 8 of 2023 in O.A. No. 462 of 2022, the prayer for substitution of Applicant for compassionate appointment was allowed.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 14.02.2022 and 06.02.203 (Annexure-A/1 & A/2) respectively issued by the respondents warrant interference.

Accordingly, O.A. stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.02.2022 and 06.02.203 (Annexure-A/1 & A/2) respectively issued by the respondents are hereby set aside and quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on Compassionate Ground in place of eldest sister, Senjam Shantirani Devi, who has already submitted her No Objection Certificate dated 26.03.2025. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.