Shakuntala vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th September, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2437/2004 titled as ''Shakuntala v. UOI and Ors.'', dismissing the original application of the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment after the death of her husband late Sh. Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade-II, who died on 24th September, 2000.

The Petitioner had challenged the communication dated 18th/23rd June, 2004 by which the Respondents had rejected the request of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of non-availability of vacancy under 5% quota of compassionate appointment. While rejecting the request of the Petitioner, reliance was also placed on DOP&T OM dated 5th May, 2003 prescribing the maximum time limit of three years for making the request.

The Petitioner had submitted a request on 25th October, 2000 for compassionate appointment after the demise of her husband, late Sh. Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade II, who died on 24th September, 2000 leaving behind the Petitioner and his three minor children. The Petitioner had filled a prescribed proforma seeking compassionate appointment. According to her, as no action was taken despite making various representations, she filed an original application being OA No. 343/2004, which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 20th February, 2004 directing the Respondents to dispose off her representation by passing a detailed speaking order in the light of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension within the time limit prescribed therein.

Consequent to the directions of the Tribunal in OA No. 343/2004, the request of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined and she was sent a communication dated 18th/23rd June, 2004, which was challenged by the Petitioner by filing OA No. 2437/2004.

Before the Tribunal, the Respondents had contested the claim of the Petitioner by contending that as per the vacancy position worked out since the year 1995 and onwards, no vacancy was available under 5% compassionate appointment quota, except the one which arose in the year 1998, for which another deserving candidate was appointed. After the year 1998 and up to 2000, no vacancy had arisen under 5% quota for compassionate appointment, and therefore, the meeting of Screening Committee was not held.

The Respondents had further asserted that the meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 11th July, 2003 when a vacancy arose for the said quota in the year of 2002. The committee had considered the cases of 29 dependants of the deceased Govt. Servants including the case of the Petitioner. After considering all the aspects as per the DOP&T OM dated 9th October, 1998, the case of Smt. Rama, Respondent No. 5, dependant of another deceased Govt. Servant for compassionate appointment was found to be more WP(C) No. 22673/2005 Page 4 of 5 deserving on merit and accordingly, the vacancy was filled by her. The comparative financial position of the Petitioner and Smt. Rama, as given before the Tribunal is as under:

Sl. No

Name

DCRG

CGEIS

GPF

Leave Encashment

Family Pension

LIC Policy

1.

Smt. Shakuntla, W/o Late Sh. Samay Chand (Sr.No.19)

99,828/-

38,482/-

37,032/-

79,585/-

2950/-

60,000/-

2.

Smt. Rama, W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Sr.No.26)

52,920/-

17,405/-

17,325/-

Nil

1275/-

Nil

In the circumstances, it was further contended that on 24th February, 2005, a reply was filed by the Respondents to the averments and pleas raised in the original application. As no vacancy was available and as the maximum period as contemplated under DOP&T OM dated 5th May, 2003 had also expired, therefore, the case of the Petitioner was closed.

The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the parties and relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Cochin Dock Labour Board Vs. Leenamma Samuel and Others, Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, held that the compassionate appointment cannot be considered out of turn and can only be on the basis of the priority list which is prepared. The Tribunal also noted that though there had been no vacancy since the year 1998 till 2001, their cases were rightly considered along with others in the next available vacancy in the year 2002, however, the Petitioner could not be given appointment on account of other more deserving cases for compassionate appointment and thus, rejected the petition of the Petitioner against the communication dated 18th/23rd June, 2004, and declined the request of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment.

The matter was taken up for hearing on 4th May, 2011, however, no one was present on behalf of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was however, heard for some time. On 4th May, 2011, no adverse order was passed against the Petitioner in the interest of justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of Regular Matters.

Today again no one is present on behalf of the Petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in default.