Sandeep Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. allow this Original application and direct the Respondent No.1 to ensure that the applicant be given appointment on compassionate basis with consequential benefits and pay fixation and seniority after setting aside the entire procedure, pursuant to which the impugned order dated 27.1.2014 was passed, as vitiated and consequently set aside/quash the order dated 27.1.2014 and also quash the appointment given to the Respondent No.2,

ii. call for the entire records of the respondent showing all the details of the appointments made on compassionate basis since the year 1998 including the records of the persons who have been appointed on compassionate basis since 1998 and direct the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of the applicant in the earlier rounds as well after setting aside the said procedures and decisions of appointments, if any, made in the said procedures,

iii. direct the respondents to give promotion to the applicant from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits and seniority,

iv. pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon"ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

This is the second round of litigation. Earlier also, the applicant had filed OA No. 854/2005 and that had already been disposed of vide CAT"s order dated 29.11.2005, as accepted by the applicant himself. A perusal of this order shows that CAT had considered all the issues raised in this present OA and had finally passed the following directions:-

"13. At the same time applicant"s request to call all the records of UOI to see who all were recommended and given compassionate appointment cannot be entertained as we are not sitting here to hold a roving enquiry nor are in a position to monitor each and every case by looking into the details as to how they were given compassionate appointment. Moreso when none of them have been impleaded in this OA, therefore, compassionate appointment if already given to those persons, it cannot be questioned at this stage. I also feel that if compassionate appointment was given by some other Ministries to the ward of their employees, applicant cannot question their appointment because definitely the employees of that particular Ministry would have a better claim for the vacancies meant for compassionate appointment in that particular Ministry over outsiders whose names have been circulated by other Ministries. In view of this, request made by the applicant in his MA 1822/2005 cannot be accepted. The same is accordingly rejected. I, however, feel applicant"s case needs to be remitted back to the authorities for reconsideration at least against future direct recruitment vacancies in Group „D" post as a fresh candidate provided he fulfills the qualifications because within 3 years when he was found fit for grant of compassionate appointment, the vacancies of Group „D" was very much available, but he was not considered as an open candidate which could have always been done. Respondents may consider engaging the applicant even on daily wage basis also if there is any such work available with them looking to his family condition. I am sure that respondents would consider applicant"s case sympathetically in view of the observations made above and inform the applicant accordingly within a reasonable period."

The Tribunal took a view that the applicant"s case was to be considered for engaging him even on daily wage basis also if there is any such work available with the respondents looking to his family condition and the respondents were to consider applicant"s case sympathetically in view of the observations made above and inform the applicant accordingly within a reasonable time. The applicant concedes that his case was, in fact, considered sympathetically and he was given employment as private contractor"s employee as fresh Group „D" vacancies were not filled up after this judgment. The Court had made it very clear that "Moreso when none of them have been impleaded in this OA, therefore, compassionate appointment if already given to those persons, it cannot be questioned at this stage. I also feel that if compassionate appointment was given by some other Ministries to the ward of their employees, applicant cannot question their appointment because definitely the employees of that particular Ministry would have a better claim for the vacancies meant for compassionate appointment in that particular Ministry over outsiders whose names have been circulated by other Ministries." With the above directions, the OA was disposed of.

The respondents, in the preliminary objections, have raised the issue of res judicata, as the matter had already been disposed of vide CAT"s order dated 29.11.2015 in OA No. 854/2005. They further informed that the applicant"s candidature has been considered for the future vacancy which has arisen for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, nothing remains in this OA.

After hearing both the parties, a perusal of the record shows that all the issues raised in the present OA have already been considered in detail by the CAT in its order dated 29.11.2015 in OA No. 854/2005.

It is further noted that in compliance of the above order, the applicant was informed vide reply dated 23.03.2006 that as there is lack of vacancy under Compassionate Appointment Quota of 5% of total vacancies and in pursuance of Ministry of Finance OM dated 23-11-2005 vacant post of peons are being filled up through Outsourcing. Further, as the applicant could not have been engaged on regular basis without the approval of Ministry of Finance and Department of Personnel & Training and the CAT had only ordered the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant even as daily wage employee within a reasonable time, keeping in view of his condition, he was advised, in compliance of Court"s directions, to approach M/s Hous Tec India Private Limited to employee him, as the said firm was engaged in providing outsource service to respondent Ministry. Now it is found that the applicant is presently working as an employee of a private contractor and matters relating to employment by private contractors do not come within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence this OA is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as well.

For the above reasons, the OA is dismissed both on grounds of res judicata and for want of jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs.