AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:
In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
M.A. No. 350/00556/2017 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application.
I find that the applicant has filed this instant O.A. challenging the Speaking Order dated 03.02.2015 only on 03.07.2017 on the ground of financial stringency and as this is a case of compassionate appointment and until and unless the delay is condoned, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, for the ends of justice, delay is condoned. Accordingly, the M.A. is disposed of.
The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"a)Direct the Respondents to give an appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant after disposing of the application of the applicants dated 01.07.1999 in accordance with law & considering the representation dated 10.01.2011.
b)Direct the Respondents to give an appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant in accordance with law.
c)Directing upon the respondents to quash and set aside the speaking Order passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah on 03.02.2015.
d)To give benefit of judgment being O.A. No. 1251/2015 dated 09.02.2017.
e)Any other order or orders as to your Lordship may seem fit and proper."
The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the father of the applicant, Late Lakhan, Ex-Safaiwala, CTFR/R/SDAD died in harness on 18.07.1987 leaving behind the applicant as his legal heir. At that point of time the applicant was a minor. Subsequently, after attaining majority he made a representation dated 07.01.1999 before the Respondent No. 2 praying for providing him suitable job on compassionate ground under the Railway administration. However, despite his best efforts the respondents did not reply to his representation. Being aggrieved, he made another representation on 01.01.2001 before the Sr. Divisional Personnel officer praying for appointment on compassionate ground. But his prayer was not considered by the respondents till date. The applicant has relied upon Order dated 22.09.2009 passed in O.A. No. 1256 of 2009 to substantiate his claim. Further, the applicant preferred an O.A. No. 664 of 2011 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide Order dated 01.05.2013. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities have passed a Speaking Order dated 03.02.2015. He further submits that in respect of proof of school he has obtained requisite certificate from the school authorities as well as the Chairman, Bhatpara Municipality. He submits that similarly situated person has already filed O.A. No. 1251 of 2015 and vide Order dated 09.02.2017 this Tribunal had directed the authorities to consider the case of the applicant in that O.A. who was also possessing all the requisite qualification for grant of compassionate appointment and had directed the authorities to complete the process of granting compassionate appointment within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
The respondents have filed reply wherein they have contended that at the time of death of the ex-employee on 18.08.1987, the applicant was a minor, since his date of birth was 13.07.1979. The widow of the deceased submitted that she had applied for compassionate appointment for the first time on 07.01.1999 and thereafter on several occasions, however, no application was received by the respondents and therefore it could not be processed. After a long gap, the applicant had filed an O.A. bearing No. 664/2011 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 07.01.1999. Pursuant to such Order of this Tribunal dated 01.05.2013 in O.A. No. 664/2011, the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Sealdah sent all forms of compassionate appointment to the applicant, which was duly filled upon on 02.09.2013 and was sent for verification. As per the report of the Welfare Inspector on 12.11.2013, a school leaving certificate of Negal Nagar Nehru Junior High School could not be verified as it did not exist. Thereafter, the District Inspector of School (S.E), Barracpore was approached for verification of the school leaving certificate and also proof of age of the applicant vide letter dated 07.01.2014 followed by reminders. The District Inspector of School (S.E.), Barrackpore sent a reply on 05.12.2014 intimating the respondents that there was no such school in the name of Negal Nagar Nehru Junior High School under this Education District. So the genuineness of the school leaving certificate and proof of age was under cloud and the case of the applicant was rejected vide Speaking Order dated 03.02.2015. The applicant has challenged the instant O.A. challenging this Speaking order.
The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated. In addition to this, the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta dated 25.01.2023 in support of his claim in the case of Balaram Sardar v. Union of India & ors.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. None appears for the official respondents. Since the pleadings are complete and this matter pertains to the year 2017, hence I invoke Rule 16(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and proceed to pass Orders.
It is noted that the applicant has referred to Order passed in O.A. No. 350/01251/2015 dated 09.02.2017 and has sought for extension of benefit of that Order. While perusing the Order, I find that in Para 10 of the Order it has been observed as under:-
"10.From the chronology of the events, it is clear that while rejecting the case of Faroque Shaikh the respondents have committed an error of not verifying the genuinity of the certificate from the concerned school. As the certificate issued by the school has been found to be genuine, undoubtedly a mistake was committed by the respondents by not granting compassionate appointment in favour of Faroque Shaikh who was eligible for grant of compassionate appointment in all aspect. Though almost 14 years have passed from the death of the railway employee, it is seen that in the year 2002 the rejection for grant of compassionate appointment was made by the respondents on the ground of certificate issued by an unrecognized school. It may happen that the widow was waiting for her younger son to be qualified from a recognized school and after the youngest son qualified from a recognized Board, she applied for compassionate appointment in favour of her youngest son, Amit Shaikh. Amit Shaikh has passed Class XII in the year 2012 and the applicant No. 1 has applied in the year 2012 itself, and moreso before 2012 Amit Shaikh was a minor and application could not have been made for grant of compassionate appointment in his favour." From the above, it is noted that the case of the instant applicant is quite distinguishable as in the instant case the District Inspector of School (S.E.) has specifically given a report that there was no existence of such school in Barrackpore whereas in the case relied upon by the applicant, the school was genuine only the school was not recognized. Thus, the judgment mentioned by the applicant is not applicable in the instant case.
Further, the judgment relied upon by the applicant annexed to the rejoinder is dissimilar to the fact of the present case as in that as in that case there is a dispute regarding date of birth of the petitioner whereas in the instant case the existence of the school itself is under question. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondent authorities.
Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merits. There shall be no Order as to costs.