Ram Swaroop Verma vs Union Of India And Ors

Through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) Quash and set aside order dt. 08.06.15 (Annexure A-1) and order dt. 30.06.2015 (Annexure A-2) as respondents have not approved applicant"s name for appointment on compassionate grounds;

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and appoint him also on compassionate grounds."

Factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-

2.1 The applicant"s father, late Mr. Jagdish Prasad, was working as a Chowkidar (Group "D") in Directorate of Advertisement & Visual Publicity (DAVP), which comes under the administrative control of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The applicant"s mother predeceased his father on 11.10.1997.

2.2 At the time of death of his mother, the applicant"s family comprised of his father, self, elder sister and younger sister. The applicant was then four and half years old. Unfortunately, the applicant"s father also died in harness on 18.09.2002 after prolong illness, at the age of 42 years, leaving behind two dependents, namely, the applicant and his younger sister, who was then five and half years of age. His elder sister had got married by the time.

2.3 To look after these two minors, i.e., the applicant and his younger sister, their aunt, Mrs. Prabhati Devi was appointed as a guardian by the District Judge, Sikar by the order dated 24.01.2005.

2.4 After the death of applicant"s father, the family was paid DCRG of `56816/-, GPF of `14991/- and family pension of `1585/- per month. The applicant became major in the year 2011. On 04.05.2011, he submitted Annexure A-8 representation to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment for himself. He was directed by the respondents to submit family particulars in the prescribed proforma latest by 02.03.2012, which he did.

2.5 The case of the applicant for compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) O.M. dated 16.01.2013 (pp.162 to 175). The Compassionate Appointments Committee (CAC) of the respondent department met on 31.07.2014, in which, as many as 24 applications were considered, including that of the applicant. The CAC applied marks - awarding criteria under different parameters to determine and evaluate indigence of each of the applicants. The details are as under:-

(a) Family Pension - 20

(b) Terminal Benefit - 10

(c) Monthly Income - 05

(d) Property - 10

(e) No. of Dependents - 15

(f) Minor Children - 10

(g) Left over service - 10

(h) Most recent - 20

2.6 The CAC recommended only 4 candidates for grant of compassionate appointment; the applicant was not one of the recommended candidates.

2.7 The CAC, thereafter, was reconstituted by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vide order dated 13.05.2015. The reconstituted CAC met on 15.06.2015 and recommended 30 candidates for compassionate appointment. It also kept 4 candidates in reserve. Unfortunately, the applicant did not find his name again in the list of recommended candidates nor even in the reserve list.

Aggrieved by non-consideration of his candidature for grant of the compassionate appointment, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the instant O.A. praying for the main reliefs, as indicated in paragraph (1) above.

Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply.

On completion of pleadings, the matter was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 25.07.2018. The arguments of Mr. R A Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and that of Mr. Vidya Sagar for Mr. H K Gangwani, learned counsel for respondents were heard.

Mr. R A Sharma, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the criterion adopted by the CAC to evaluate indigence of the candidates seeking compassionate appointments is flawed, inasmuch as it allocates a very high 20 marks for "recent cases". He stated that the applicant has been living in abject poverty. At the time of his father"s death, he was only 9 years old and, thus, he could not have applied for the compassionate appointment earlier to 2011. The parameter "recent cases" would work severely against the interest of the applicant in spite of the fact that the applicant is in high poverty-stricken state. This parameter would never allow the true indigence of the applicant and similar candidates to come to light.

Mr. Sharma further stated that the applicant does not have any immoveable property, but he has been judged incorrectly on this parameter by the CAC.

Per contra, learned proxy counsel for respondents argued that allcases of compassionate appointment have been considered by the CAC strictly in accordance with the terms of DoPT O.M. dated 16.01.2013 (p.162). He further stated that the marks - awarding criterion against various parameters enables the CAC to evaluate indigence of candidates to a very transparent and objective way.

I have considered the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.

After going through the records, I am convinced that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been considered by the CAC in accordance with DoPT O.M. dated 16.01.2013. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant does not own any immoveable property and the CAC has wrongly denied him marks and hence, the CAC has erred in not giving marks to him on the parameter "property", needs to be re-verified.

Mr. Sharma has made a very valid argument that granting too much weightage to "recent cases" parameter also requires to be re-looked into by the respondents, for the reason that minor children of the Government servants, who die in harness, cannot seek compassionate appointment at the time of their death and later on, after they attain majority, this parameter would start working against them. It would be prudent on the part of the respondents to have a re-look at this parameter.

In the conspectus, I dispose of this O.A with the following directions to the respondents:

a) The respondents shall re-verify as to whether the applicant's family owns any immoveable property or not.

b) The respondents shall re-visit the parameter of "recent cases" for determination of indigence of candidates seeking compassionate appointment.

c) The directions at (a) & (b) supra shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

d) The respondents shall place the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the next meeting of the CAC whenever it is held.

No order as to costs.