AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“8.1 That this Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original application and set aside the impugned order dated 29.5.2017 with
all consequential benefits.
8.2 That this Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to directing the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment to the post
of Hindi Steno with all consequential benefits.
8.3 That this Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to produce all relevant records regarding consideration of applicant
to the post of Hindi Steno before this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.
8.4 That any other or further relief which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted
in favour of the applicants.
8.5 That the cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the applicants.â€
Brief factual matrix of the case as stated by the applicant are that father of the applicant, who was working as Trackman in Group „D‟ category
in Northern Railway, Delhi Division, died during the course of employment on 19.2.2013, leaving behind applicant, widow mother and other family
members. The applicant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds as financial condition of the
family is very bad and there is no other source of income. Applicant further stated that he had passed diploma in Hindi stenography and B.A. and as
such qualified to be appointed in Group „C‟ category.
2.1 The respondents considered the aforesaid request of the applicant and asked him to submit relevant papers for appointment which he submitted.
After considering his case, the respondents had issued a letter of appointment dated 6.8.2013, appointing him to the post of Trainee Technician-III
(TRD)/Electrical) in Grade of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1900. Thereafter after considering and declaring suitable for the said post, the
applicant was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 15.7.2013 in which the applicant was declared medically fit vide medical certificate dated
17.7.2013 and accordingly, appointment letter dated 4.9.2013 appoint him to the said post was issued. Thereafter after joining the said post, the
applicant made a representation dated 21.3.2014 for changing his category from the post of Trainee Technician-III (TRD)/Electrical) to that of Hindi
Stenographer as he is having diploma in Hindi stenography and also having B.A. degree.
2.2 According to the averments of the applicant, his request was accepted by the respondents for considering his case to the post of Hindi
Stenographer. The applicant was called for written examination followed by interview on 3.2.2015 by the respondents and after his being successful in
both the examinations, he was called for further medical examination to the post of Hindi Stenographer on 17.7.2015 by the respondents and asked
him to deposit Rs.24/-. The medical examination of the applicant was conducted and he was found fit. After waiting for considerable period, the
applicant approached the respondents for releasing the appointment to the post of Hindi Stenographer, who informed the applicant that his case has
been sent for the approval to the General Manager as and when approval is received, he will be informed accordingly.
2.3 Thereafter applicant submitted his representation on 17.11.2015, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 16.12.2015 and again he
moved similar representation on 23.12.2015 which was also rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14.1.2016.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the applicant filed OA 801/2016 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order dated 14.3.2017 disposed of the same on the
request made by counsel for the applicant with a direction to the respondents to reconsider and decide the representation of the applicant dated
23.12.2015 for change of category to Hindi Stenographer by an authority higher than the Divisional Personnel Officer/Admin. in the light of the
Railway Board‟s letter dated 7.8.2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order.
2.5 In compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Tribunal, the respondents have passed order dated 29.5.2017 and again rejected the claim of the
applicant. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2017, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
When this matter taken up for consideration, counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 29. 5.2017 has been issued by an
incompetent authority and the same is also again liable to be set aside as the respondents failed to assign any reasons in the same.
3.1 Counsel for the applicant further submitted that while rejecting the claim of the applicant by the impugned order, the respondents did not consider
the observations of this Tribunal made in para 7 of Order dated 14.3.2017 passed in OA 801/2016 and as such the action of the respondents is
arbitrary, illegal and malafide.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to their counter affidavit submitted that upon receipt of request of widow of
deceased Govt. employee, the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority. The applicant appeared in the written test held on 10.
6.2013 and secured 42 marks out of 100 and was found suitable for the post of App. Tech-III/TRD/elect of Grade Pay of Rs.1900 by the suitability
committee consisting of three JA Grade Officers and the same was approved by DRM/DLI. Accordingly, offer of appointment for the said post was
issued to the applicant vide letter dated 6.8.2013 wherein terms and condition of his appointment on compassionate ground were advised to him. He
was also asked to submit the receipt of 50/- as security money and Indemnity Bond on Rs.20 stamp paper, if he is ready to take up the appointment.
Applicant submitted the Indemnity Bond dated 4.9.2013 wherein he agreed to take up the post of App. Tech-III/TRD/Elect GP-1900 and also
accepted all the terms and conditions for his appointment. He also submitted Rs.50/- on account of security money at New Delhi Station on 4.9.2013.
He also gave his application dated 8.8.2013 that he accepts the offered post of App. Tech-III/TRD/Elect and has no objection.
4.1 Counsel further submitted that applicant appeared in the medical examination and was declared fit for the said post vide Memo dated 18.7.2013.
Upon his acceptance for the said post and fulfilling all the legal formalities required before appointment were made, finally appointment letter for the
said post was issued to him vide respondent‟s letter dated 4.9.2013, which was received by him on the same day. He was advised to report for
training to SSE/TRD/OHE/NDLS before 16.9.2013.
4.2 Counsel also submitted that application dated 13.5.2014 of the applicant was received on 14.8.2014 in the office of the respondents in which he
made a request for change of category as Clerk, which was examined in terms of Railway Board instructions dated 7.8.2009 in which the following
clarification had been given:
“It is clarified that in case of compassionate ground appointment, category allotted to a candidate could be considered for change only before a
candidate accepts the offer of appointment and goes for medical examination. Once the candidate accepts the offer of appointment and goes for
medical examination then change of category should be done either on account of medical fitness or by an authority higher than one who has decided
the category allotment.â€
Since the applicant had already accepted the post of App.
Tech-III/TRD/Elect Grade Pay of Rs.1900 and fulfilled all the necessary formalities required before appointment is made and also underwent medical
examination and was declared fit for the allotted category, competent authority did not find any merit in considering his case for change of category as
per the aforesaid Board‟s letter and the reply was given to the applicant vide letter dated 3.9.2014. However, when the applicant again submitted his
applications dated 17.11.2015 and 23.12.2015 for considering his case for change of category, the same were again replied vide letters dated
16.12.2015 and 14.1.2016 that as he had already accepted the offer/appointment letter for the said post and also undergone medical examination as
such his fresh request for change of post had not been considered by the competent authority.
4.3 Counsel further submitted that applicant challenged the aforesaid decision of the respondents before this Tribunal by filing OA 801/2016 and this
Tribunal vide order dated 14.3.2016 with direction to the respondents to reconsider the representation of the applicant dated 23.12.2015 and decide the
same having regard to Railway Board‟s instructions dated 7.8.2009 by an authority higher than the Division Personnel Officer/Admin. Accordingly, in
compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, speaking order dated 29.3.2017 was passed by the Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer-II, i.e., higher
authority than the Division Personnel Officer/Admin. In which the respondents have considered the Railway Board‟s instructions dated 7.8.2009
which clarifies that „once the candidate accepts the offer of appointment and goes for medical examination then change of category should be done
either on account of medical unfitness or by an authority higher than one who has decided the category allotment‟ and further stated that initial
medical examination of the applicant was done on 17.7.2013 in which he was declared medically fit. However, when the applicant did not join the
allotted post for about two years, his medical examination was again conducted in terms of Railway Board‟s letter dated 7.8.2009 to ascertain
whether the candidate is still medically fit to join the Railways. Therefore, the applicant was again sent for medical examination and was again
declared fit in Aye-two & Below medical category vide fit Memo dated 22.7.2015.
Heard Shri M.S. Reen, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ekta Rani for Shri Kripa Shanker Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the pleadings available on record.
The admitted fact is that applicant was given an offer of appointment to the post of App. Tech.-III/TRD/Elect in GP Rs.1900 as a compassionate
appointment by the respondents, which offer was accepted by the applicant vide his letter dated 8.8.2013, copy of which is at page 88 of the paper
book. He has also undergone medical examination and also submitted his Indemnity Bond on judicial stamp paper dated 3.9.2013. Thereafter
appointment letter was issued to the applicant on 4.9.2013, which was received by the applicant on the same day and he was directed to report for
training before 16.9.2013. However, later on he made requests for change of category, which were considered and rejected by the respondents on the
ground that since once the initial offer was accepted by him and he has also undergone medical test in which he was declared fit for the said post, as
such his request for change of category as Hindi Stenographer has not been considered by the respondents. It is further noted that in compliance of
the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, respondents have reconsidered the representation of the applicant dated 23.12.2016 in the light of the Railway
Board‟s letter dated 7.8.2009 and the same was decided by the higher authority than the Divisional Personnel Officer/Admin.
So far as contention of the applicant that what was the reason for conducting of medical examination again is concerned, the respondents have
categorically stated that since the applicant did not join the said post for about 2 years, as such his medical examination was again conducted in terms
of Railway Board‟s letter dated 7.8.2009 to ascertain whether the candidate is still medically fit to join the Railways. Therefore, the applicant was
again sent for medical examination and was then declared fit in Aye-two & Below medical category vide fit Memo dated 22.7.2015. Hence, the
respondents, Railways, reasoning given for sending the applicant for second medical examination is valid and is accepted and is in keeping with the
policy when an applicant seeks to join after a long period after his medical examination, as is the case of the applicant of this OA, then in such a
situation conducting a second medical examination before allowing delayed joining is not illegal.
In conclusion, it is quite clear that the applicant of this OA was considered for compassionate appointment and as per rules, he was given an offer
of appointment after he was declared medically fit for the said post. Thereafter he gave his acceptance for the same by his reply and he was advised
to report for training. Thereafter applicant kept asking for change in the post to which he has been selected and giving representations in this regard
and thereafter the respondents dealt with his request in accordance with the Railway Board‟s instructions dated 7.8.2009 in which clarifications had
been given on how to deal with the request for change of category in a matter of compassionate appointee after the initial offer of appointment. They
have fully followed the Railway Board instructions dated 7.8.2009. They have also complied with the previous Order given by this Tribunal by Order
dated 14.3.2016 in which they were told to have the representation of the applicant considered by an authority higher than the Divisional Personnel
Officer/Admin. In compliance thereof the representation of the applicant dated 23.12.2015 has been considered in the light of the Railway Board‟s
instructions dated 7.8.2009 by the Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer-II. Hence, they have fully complied with all of the instructions issued with regard to such
appointment.
Hence, we do not find any merit in the OA preferred by the applicant. Therefore, the OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.