N.K. Rajesh vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant's father who was employed under the respondents as a Head Havildar died on 28.06.2010 prematurely. He left behind his wife and three children, including the applicant. An application was filed seeking compassionate appointment. Since there was no response, the applicant submitted Annexure A4 RTI application dated 17.02.2016. By reply dated 17.03.2016, it was informed that there were 11 vacancies in the year 2015. Out of the 43 applications received, 10 applicants were called for physical ^{test. However, no candidate was appointed.}Central Administrative Tribunal

The applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 283 of 2016. This Tribunal, by Annexure A5 order, disposed of the O.A directing Respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the applicant afresh on basis of documents that were available and to make justified recommendations.

Contending that his case was not fairly considered and that he was not offered appointment, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

Respondents contended that his case was not originally considered, since he was a married person. This view was changed later and thereupon he was considered for the subsequent years evidenced by Annexures R1 to R3 minutes of the Committee. The Committee did not find him suitable, since more meritorious candidates were available. Accordingly, he was not entitled to get the appointment, it was submitted.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

It is true that the applicant had submitted application seeking compassionate appointment well within time. He was not considered in 2015, for the reason that at that point of time, since the existing policy prescribed that married persons will not be considered for compassionate appointment. This is evident from Annexure R-4, FAQs wherein at sl. No. 13, in answer to the question whether 'married son can be considered for compassionate appointment', answer was in the negative. Thereafter, it was changed evident from the FAQ No. 60 at page 24 of Annexure R4. Thereafter the case of the applicant was considered during the subsequent years. Annexure R1 is the Minutes for the year 2018. At Annexure R1(6), the case of the applicant is detailed. It was recorded that the case of 10 married male applicants which were not considered by the former Committee, were considered. Having considered the entire aspects, the few candidates were recommended for appointment. However, the applicant was not recommended, obviously he was not found to be meritorious.

In the reply statement, it is stated that according to the parameters fixed for the point system, which was introduced in 2019, the applicant obtained only 42 points. The Committee decided to recommend 11 candidates who had secured higher merit points for compassionate appointment. The applicant was not among the 11 candidates. Though he was considered for the subsequent years evidenced by Annexures R2 and R3, his name was not considered being less meritorious.

The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that entire parameters were not taken into consideration. Though the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the date of death of the deceased was not a criteria for consideration in the points system, I find that it is of no consequence. The claim of each of the candidates should be considered on the basis of the family's situation in which he is placed. Basically the compassionate appointment is offered to the most needy among the various candidates on the basis of points secured on the basis of various prescribed factors. In that, the date of death of a person has no much relevance, since the points system has been scientifically fixed, I think that such a contentions is misplaced. The applicant was considered in Annexure R1 and specifically in accordance with the various parameters laid down for the points system, the applicant has no case that any point has been left out. Applicant has no case that he was more meritorious than the recommended candidates. He has no case that any candidate was wrongly recommended. Having considered this, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Committee which on a detailed evaluation of the case of each of the candidate had identified the most meritorious among the various candidates.

In the absence of anything to establish that the conclusions arrived at by the Committee was faulty, I find no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the O.A fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Annexure A1- A true copy of the death certificate of Shri. N.A. Krishnakutty issued by Cochin Corporation dated 20.07.2010.

Annexure A2- A true copy of the request letter submitted by the applicant dated 18.02.2013.

Annexure A3- True copies of the consent letters of other legal heirs dated 28.07.2010.

Annexure A4- True copies of the RTI application dated 17.02.2016 and the reply dated 17.03.2016, along with the attached list.

Annexure A5- A true copy of the order dated 08.10.2018.

Annexure A6- True copies of the reminder letters dated 30.10.2018 and 23.03.2019 submitted by the applicant before Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Annexure A7- A true copy of the communication dated 26.03.2019 addressed to the applicant, C.No.II/39/22/2017-Estt.

Annexure A8- A true copy of the letter No. GEXCOM/II/(3)/63/2021-ESTT dated .01.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (P&V), Office of ^{the Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise to candidates.}Central Administrative Tribunal

Annexure A9- A true copy of the application form along with the updated details submitted by the applicant along with the proof of service along with English translation.

Annexure A10- A true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 24.01.2024, No. GEXCOM/II/(3)/63/2021-ESTT.

Annexure A11- A true copy of the order no. 24/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 4 dated 06.02.2024.

Annexure R1- True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 27.11.2015 along with the list of candidates not considered for Compassionate Appointment.

Annexure R2- True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 along with the list of candidates considered for Compassionate Appointment.

Annexure R3- True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 12.12.2023 along with the list of candidates considered for Compassionate Appointment.

Annexure R4- True copy of the DoP&T's Frequently Asked Questions issued vide No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) dated 30.05.2013.

Annexure R5- True copy of the DoP&T O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 25.02.2015.

Annexure R6- True copy of the DoP&T's O.M No. 43019/9/2019-Estt. (D) dated 23.08.2021.

Annexure R7- True copy of the letter of CBIC F.No. A.12012/52/2018-Ad.III.B dated 15.05.2019.

Annexure R8- True copy of the letter F.No.A.12012/8/2020-Ad.III.B dated 14.12.2020.

Annexure R9- True copy of the DoPT's O.M. No. 14014/6/1994 Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998.

Annexure R10- True copy of the master circular on Scheme of Compassionate Appointment issued vide DoP&T's O.M. F.No. 14014/01/2022-Estt.(D) dated 02.08.2022.