Samiran Paramanik & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

Dismissal of O.A. 350/804/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata by its order dated November 17, 2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

The petitioner no. 2 was an employee of the railways. Due to physical incapacitation, he had to retire prematurely on January 06, 2000. He applied for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground. Since no decision was taken by the railways on such application, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the tribunal for the first time in 2015 by presenting O.A. 1627 of 2015, which was disposed of on November 26, 2015 with a direction upon the respondents to reply to a representation dated May 13, 2013. A speaking order dated February 25, 2016 was issued by the railways containing grounds based on which assistance on compassionate ground was refused. Such order having been challenged before the tribunal resulted in the challenge being rejected, as noticed at the beginning of this judgment.

The primary ground on which the prayer of the petitioners was rejected appears to be that the petitioner no. 2 was in receipt of a pension of Rs. 29,000/-. There was another ground; the petitioner no. 2 was more than 40 years old at the time of his retirement from service. These factors weighed in the mind of the tribunal.

Although the tribunal's order has been assailed on the ground that the tribunal failed to apply its mind to the relevant circulars/schemes providing for assistance on compassionate ground, we are inclined to concur with the conclusion of the tribunal that the original application lacked merit but on a different ground.

Admittedly, the petitioner no. 2 retired in 2000. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners that they were continuing to make representations, after the initial application for assistance on compassionate ground was made, to draw the attention of the respondents but all such efforts proved abortive. The tribunal was approached for the first time in 2015, i.e. long after the retirement of the petitioner no. 2. Merely because the tribunal entertained the application and passed an order on the respondents to reply to the representation dated May 13, 2013, does not and cannot mean that the order dated February 25, 2016 furnishes a fresh ground of challenge to the petitioners and that the long delay of fifteen years, i.e. from 2000 to 2015 should not be taken into consideration.

We are of the firm view, having regard to the objects for which assistance on compassionate ground is extended, that delay would be fatal in such case. The very fact of efflux of 15 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner no. 2 and survival of the petitioners for all these years without any assistance on compassionate ground seem to suggest that the family of the petitioner no. 2 is/was not in such extreme financial distress that such assistance was called for, on facts and in the circumstances.

We see no reason to interfere with the decision rendered by the tribunal. The writ petition is without merit and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.