AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Shri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
“ (i) Issue an order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure 1 to the Compilation -1).
(ii)Issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to appoint the applicant on any post (even on lowest post) on compassionate ground under Dying-in-Harness Rules.
(iii)To issue any other order or any direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv)Award costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant died on 03.08.2010 while working as Helper Grade -1 in Bridge Workshop, North East Railway, Gorakhpur. The applicant submitted her application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on 15.12.2011 which was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2012 on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter of the deceased employee. Aggrieved by the above order, the applicant filed an OA No.1384 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which was allowed vide order dated 03.02.2017. The applicant sent the certified copy of the aforesaid order with a request to appoint her on compassionate ground. The applicant received a reply that the Railway Board has stopped the appointment of person/applicant under Dying in Harness Rules who have not passed Class- VIII (Annexure-A-1) and photocopy of the letter of Railway Board referred as Annexure-A-4. The applicant further submitted that the above letter (Annexure-A-4) has been wrongly interpreted by respondent No.3. The applicant have represented to Respondent No.3 on 30.06.2018 for her appointment on any lowest post on compassionate ground which has not been decided so far (Annexure-A-5). On the basis of above discussion, the applicant have submitted to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 passed by respondent No.3 as it is bad in law and facts.
In their counter reply, the respondents have submitted that the Ministry of Railways vide letter No. E(NG)-II/2009/RR-1/10PT dated 09.12.2010 and 09.12.2013 have been decided that henceforth minimum educational qualification for recruitment in pay Band -I of Rs. 5,200-20,200 having Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- will be 10th pass or ITI or equivalent. It is further submitted that the Railway Board vide letter No. No.E(NG)-II/2011/RR-1/11 dated 09.12.2011 has clarified that in the matter of compassionate appointment, the candidates who do not possess essential qualification of 10th Class or ITI, will be appointed as trainee in pay Band scale of Rs.4440-7440 (without Grade Pay) and after acquiring the essential qualification i.e. 10th pass or ITI, candidates will be given benefit of Rs.5200-20200/- Grade Pay Rs.1800/-. It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant, marriage daughter of Late Nihori the instruction of Railway Board’s letter dated 09.12.2011, 09.12.2013, 22.08.2017 and 06.04.2018 only for widow/wife considered for appointment on compassionate ground and relaxation of prescribed educational qualification Class 10th pass or equivalent I.T.I. The dependent Son/daughter has no right for relaxation in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground without passing Class 10th or I.T.I. equivalent. On the above submissions, the respondents have requested to dismiss the OA.
The available facts and pleadings of both the parties have been heard. The papers cited in counter reply has not been enclosed by the respondents. The operating portion of the order in OA No.1384 of 2013 is quoted below :-
“Accordingly, O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.02.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of applicant for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh within a period of 3 months from the receipt of order of this Tribunal in the light of observations made herein above. No costs.”
Reference in RBE No.51/18 dated 06.04.2018 quoted in the impugned order refers that Railway Board have stopped the appointment of applicant who have passed only Class -VIII and cited the above quoted letter of Railway Board. The relevant portion of the letter referred in the impugned order is reproduced as below :-
“The matter was under consideration of this Ministry for quite some time. It has now been decided that in case of appointment of a widow/wife not having requisite minimum educational qualification, she will be placed in the Level -1 of the Pay Matrix introduced on implementation of 7th CPC report, without insisting on fulfillment of educational qualification norms, provided the appointing authority is satisfied that the duties of the post against which she is being appointed can be performed with the help of some on job training.”
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The analysis of available record shows that the impugned order is contrary to order passed by this Tribunal in the OA referred as well as contrary to letter dated 06.04.2018 of Railway Board. In the light of above discussions, the representation dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure-A-5) deserves sympathetic consideration and the same is pressed by the counsel for the applicant. Hence, the OA is disposed of by giving a direction to the respondents/competent authority to look into the above representation sympathetically under the relevant rules and regulations and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the above direction, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.