Rajvansh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 against the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the applicant has been declined appointment on compassionate grounds being the grandson of the deceased employee. The applicant has sought following reliefs through this O.A.:

Brief facts of the case are that the grandfather of the applicant Shri Pyare was in regular service under the senior Section Engineer (Telecom) East Central Railway Mughalsarai and he died during the service period on 22.01.2010. The father of the applicant had died on 23.09.2008 during the service period of the applicant’s grandfather leaving behind three sons, one daughter and a wife who became dependent on the deceased employee. On death of the grandfather of the applicant, the entire claim like Gratuity, Insurance, leave encashment were given to the mother of the applicant. The mother of the applicant moved an application dated 07.08.2010 for compassionate appointment of the applicant before the respondents. She also filed an affidavit on 13.01.2012 stating therein that all family members were dependent upon the grandfather of the applicant. When the respondents did not take any decision on the application for compassionate appointment, the applicant filed an O.A./445/2015 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 19.11.2019 with the direction to the respondents to consider the application/s filed by the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra Kumar, 1999 LAWSUIT (ALL) 923 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, in compliance of this Tribunal’s order the respondents, vide impugned order dated 26.12.2019, rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the grounds that he is not dependent on the deceased employee.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the grandfather of the applicant died on 22.01.2010 during service under the respondents department and the applicant’s father had also died on 23.09.2008. The grandmother of the applicant had also died earlier. The entire retiral dues of the grandfather of the applicant was received by the mother of the applicant. The application for compassionate appointment moved by the applicant's mother was not decided by the respondents, therefore, the applicant approached before this Tribunal through O.A./445/2015 which was decided with the direction to the respondents to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It was also observed in that judgement that the grandson, if dependent upon his grandfather who died in harness, is also entitled for compassionate appointment. Referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that although a detailed order has been passed by the respondents but the candidature of the applicant was rejected observing that grandson is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his grandfather. One line has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the applicant was not dependent on the deceased employee. Referring to the impugned order it was also argued that nothing was mentioned in it as to how the aforesaid observation was made without making any inquiry. It was next argued that since the applicant’s father and grandmother had died during the lifetime of the grandfather of the applicant, thus, the applicant was fully dependent upon the income of his grandfather. Observation cited by the competent authority in the impugned order is illegal and against the direction given by the Tribunal in O.A./445/2015. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 60881, 14853 and 20204 of 2015, decided on 4.12.2015) which states that “ …Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word “family” shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried granddaughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him.”

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that a reasoned and speaking order was passed on the representation of the applicant. Since he is the grandson of the deceased employee and was not dependent upon the income of the deceased employee at the time of his death, therefore, the application for compassionate appointment was turned down. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have gone through the entire document on record.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant’s grandfather died on 22.01.2010 during service period and the applicant’s father had died even earlier and his grandmother was also not alive at that time. The applicant’s mother who is the widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee had received the entire retiral dues. O.A./445/2015 was decided by this Tribunal with a specific direction that the grandson, if dependent upon the income of the grandfather, is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. It appears that the respondents without making proper inquiry as required under the law have reached at a conclusion that the applicant was not dependent upon the income of the deceased employee. The respondents ought to have made a proper inquiry as per law. Considering that the grandson is also entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground on death of his grandfather, if he was dependent on the income of the deceased employee ( his grandfather), his candidature for compassionate appointment should have been considered. Impugned order passed by the respondents is not reasoned and it has been passed without the application of mind without following the prescribed procedure. Thus, it is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.12.2019 is hereby set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to make proper inquiry regarding the dependency of the applicant upon the income of the deceased employee (his grandfather). If he is found dependent on the income of his deceased grandfather, his candidature for compassionate appointment be considered in accordance with law. All the rules applicable for compassionate appointments should also be followed. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

All the associated M.A.s also stand disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.