AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the medium of this O.A., the applicant has sought the following relief:-
"(i) Set aside the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by Brig. Commandment, Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt-10, thereby to appoint the applicant herein on the post applied for, on compassionate grounds.
(ii) Award cost and consequential relief in favor of the Applicant."
Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the father of the applicant (Late Sh. Gulshan Rai Khurana) was appointed with the respondents on 27.05.1978. Father of the applicant died on 14.07.2008 while working as Store Superintendent, leaving behind his widow, two sons (one of which applicant herein), one daughter and mother. With the NOC of other dependents of the family, the applicant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in relaxation to normal rules. The applicant has stated that after two years, the respondents informed him that his case for compassionate appointment in relaxation to normal rules has been rejected. After enquiry, the applicant was further informed that the certificate of movable/immovable property and income certificate was not in proper format. Thereafter, the applicant submitted all the necessary documents for further action. Mother of the applicant (Smt. Neelam Khurana) vide her letter dated 03.06.2014 (along with all the documents) again requested the respondents for information regarding the status of appointment on compassionate grounds of the applicant. Vide order dated 19.06.2014, the applicant was informed that:-
"It is intimated that all the documents were forwarded to IHQ of MoD (Army) through HQ Western Comd (Ord) by this depot regarding appointment in relaxation to normal rules in respect of Sh. Sanjay Khurana S/o Late Sh. Gulshan Rai Khurana. The documents were included in the annual board at IHQ of MoD (Army) but not recommended for appointment due to low merit and more deserving cases."
The applicant sent a legal notice to the respondents to provide a copy of the speaking order. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the OA- 1212/2015 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 31.03.2015 with the following directions:-
"2. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Hanu Bhasker, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, accepted notice. It is noticed that vide communication No. 3560/Relax/SK/Estt.(NI) dated 19.6.2014 the Central Ordinance Depot informed the applicant that his case was not recommended for appointment due to low merit and there being more deserving cases. In the communication, it has also been mentioned that the speaking order would be issued to him on receipt of required information from the Headquarters Western Command (Ord).
Since the respondent has not yet communicated the speaking order to the applicant, the Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondent to communicate the speaking order to the applicant within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It goes without saying that the applicant would be at liberty to file fresh Original Application after receipt of a copy of the speaking order. No costs."
Since the respondents were not complying with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the applicant filed a CP-492/2015. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the respondents issued the speaking order on 31.08.2015, hence, the Contempt Petition was closed on 11.09.2015.
The applicant states that the order dated 31.08.2015 is illegal and unlawful and not based on any cogent evidence. Hence, the applicant has impugned the same through the medium of this OA.
In reply, the respondents submit that the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered thrice for Group-C post by Annual Board of Officers for the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 under the ADRP Scheme. However, name of the applicant could not be recommended due to low merit and limited number of vacancies available. The selection of candidates under compassionate appointment is governed by 100 points scale system in pursuance of MoD ID No. 18(a)/824-99-D (Lab) dated 09.03.2001 and final selection is made on the basis of various parameters like number of children, amount of terminal benefits received, amount of family pension, liability of un-married daughter, minor children and movable, immovable properties of the deceased etc. Respondents further contend that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and does not bestow any absolute right to next of kin of the deceased to claim the job if they otherwise do not meet the requirements of the rules. In compliance of the Tribunal"s directions contained in OA-1212/2015 and CP-492/2015, the case of the applicant has been processed and order dated 31.08.2015 issued.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant Ms. Tanya Joshi reiterated the facts already raised in the O.A. She argued that the applicant, who is the sole bread earner of the family had to look after himself and dependents of his deceased father after his death. She argued that the respondents have rejected his case without giving any cogent reasons. She also emphasized that if the documents of the applicant were only completed in the year 2011, then how could his candidature be considered for the vacancies which arose in 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012? In support, she drew my attention to the Eligibility Certificate issued by the respondents on 29.03.2011, stating that:-
"Certified that Sh/Smt/Km Sanjay Khurana wife of/son of/daughter of Late Sh/Smt gulshan Raj Khurana who has applied for employment for group "C"/group "D" post fulfills the conditions laid down in DOP&T OM No.14014/C/94-Estt(D) dt 09 Oct 1998 and is eligible for employment in relaxation to normal rules."
Ms. Joshi contended that the respondents have not followed the procedure laid down in paragraph-8 of the Compassionate Appointment Instructions, which stipulates that:-
"Number of Chances
(a) Case of each applicant for compassionate appointment will be considered in three consecutive Annual Board of Officers. After convening of Annual Board of Army HQ, photocopy of Board Proceedings will be fwd to concerned Command HQs/CODs which will be communicated to each applicant about their merit status in Annual Board on each consideration. In case his name has not been recommended by the third Annual Board, a Detailed Speaking Order will be issued to the applicant on the proforma prescribed vide this HQ letter of even number dated 28 Sep 2004."
(b) A separate record of all such applicants who have been considered three times and finally rejected will be maintained by OS (Pers), Army HQ for answering any queries at later stage. Similar record may also be maintained by respective Command HQs and Units.
(c) As compassionate appointment is to be provided as a one time measure, in case of death of that dependent whose appointment was made under compassionate scheme, the claim for compassionate appointment by other family members of the first deceased Govt Servant will not be considered. However, the dependents of the deceased Govt servant appointed on compassionate appointment can have claim for further compassionate appointment.
(d) If any dependent of deceased Combatant Personnel is enrolled in the Army against the HQ quota then other member of the family will not be considered for compassionate appointment against Gp"C" and "D" Civ post."
The learned counsel submitted that even in the speaking order dated 31.08.2015, the respondents have not mentioned the marks obtained by the applicant and the specific grounds for rejecting his request.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Kiran Ahlawat confirmed that the Eligibility Certificate to the applicant was issued in March 2011 after getting all his documents completed. She supplied copies of various meetings held for filling up vacancies of compassionate appointment quota for the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. She informed the Court that the vacancies for the years 2009-2010 were held on 31.01.2012 and a combined merit list was prepared on the basis of points obtained. Similarly, the vacancies for the years 2010-2011 were discussed and decided in the meeting held on 29.05.2013 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900 and Grade Pay of Rs.1800 respectively. The Annual Board of Officers for compassionate appointment met on 07.02.2014 to consider the vacancies for the year 2011-2012. The learned counsel handed over a copy of each of the aforesaid Board Meetings, which was accepted and placed on record. She submitted that the applicant had scored only 55 marks whereas the cut off points for appointment on compassionate grounds (on 100 point scale system) scored by other candidates was 61 for the year 2009-2010, and 70 for 2010-2011, 2011-2012.
6.1 In support of this contention, she drew my attention to paragraph-4 of the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 wherein the following is enumerated:-
"Your name has been considered thrice for appointment in Gp "C" post carrying the Gp Rs. 1800/- by the Annual Board Officer held in the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 against the vacancy under ADRP scheme respectively at Army HQ and your name could not be recommended for appointment by the Annual Board of Officer due to your comparative low merit and limited number of vacancies falling to compassionate appointment quota (5% of total wastage in Gp "C" posts carrying Grade Pay 1900 & 1800). Position in the respective Board in as under:-
Year
Total
no of
Considered
Considered
No.
of
No
of
Cut off
points for
Vacancies
for Group "C"
for Group "C"
Applicant
Applicant
appointment on 100
projected to
Carrying GP
carrying GP
Selected
in
Selected
in
points Scale System
MoD/
AG"s
Rs.1900/-
Rs.1800/-
GP Rs.1900/-
GP Rs.1800/-
Branch
(a)
(b)
©
(d)
(e)
(f)
Rs.1900/-
Rs.1800/-
2009-10
326
84
242
31
41
61
74
2010-11
400
117
283
17
30
70
76
2011-12
529
171
358
15
47
70
72
Ms. Tanya Joshi concluded that, though the case of the applicant was duly considered, but his request could not be acceded to, since the cut off points secured by other candidates were higher (than 55 secured by the applicant).
I have gone through the facts of the case carefully and perused the documents relied upon/provided by both the sides.
The Scheme for compassionate appointment has been envisaged with the purpose of relieving the family of the deceased government servant from the financial destitution faced by the family after the death of the government servant. It is not in dispute that the applicant"s family was in great financial stress at the time when they lost the sole bread earner of the family. However, the respondents, while filling up the meager quota of 5% reserved for compassionate appointment, are mandated to consider all such applications of similarly placed persons at the time of filling up the vacancies, based on prescribed parameters governing the scheme.
As is evident from the chart in order dated 30.08.2015 (para 6 above), the number of applicants in each respective year ranged from 326 (2009-2010) to 400 (2010-2011) to 529 (2011-2012). The cut off points for appointment for each year, have been mentioned at Column (g) above for the three financial years, which are more than 55, secured by the applicant. The candidature of the applicant could not be considered since he could not secure the requisite minimum marks.
That the name of the applicant has been considered thrice by the Board of Officers on compassionate appointment for Group-C post is not in dispute. It is clear that the guidelines on the subject have been duly followed by the respondents while filling up the vacancies for three consecutive years in which the applicant case was also considered. There being other deserving candidates and a limited quota, he could not be given the appointment. In view of these facts, I find no ground for the Tribunal to intervene in this case. O.A. is dismissed. No costs.