AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Ram Krishna Kohli holding brief of Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“i)To issue an order, rule or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 28-11-2019 passed by the respondent authorities.
ii) To issue an order, rule or direction directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
iii) To issue an order, rule or direction directing the respondents to release the withheld payments of the deceased employee.
iv) To issue an order rule or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicant may be found entitled under law.
v)To award the cost of the original applicants may also be awarded in favor of the applicant.”
Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant while serving in the Railway Post Services at Mirzapur died on 26.07.2017 leaving behind his widow and son (the applicant). Thereafter, the mother of the applicant moved an application for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant before the authorities on 02.08.2017 followed by a representation dated 16.12.2019. When the case of the applicant was considered, he was awarded 29 merit points as per the guidelines which did not suffice to get him appointed on compassionate grounds as per the impugned letter dated 25.11.2019.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 has been passed without considering the poor financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. After the death of the applicant’s father, there is no earning member remaining in the family. The marks have been given to the applicant without considering his poverty, family background and educational qualification. Thus, prayer was made to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant was duly considered by the CRC in its meeting held on 31.10.2019 & 01.11.2019 but was not found fit due to low benchmarks i.e. 29, hence, not recommended by the CRC which was intimated vide letter dated 25.11.2019. The last recommended applicant had secured 39 merit points. It is submitted that the applicant was paid Rs.29300+DAR-family pension on 01.03.2018 and terminal benefits DCRG Rs.18,92,000/- on 25.09.2017, G.P.F. Balance Rs.5,61,092 on 14.12.2017 and CGEIS Rs.94,103/- on 01.12.2017. The department has also properly considered the case of the applicant and bench marks was awarded to the applicant as per rules and regulation and the bench marks 29 scores by the applicant is very low as the lowest selected candidates had obtained 39 marks hence the candidature of the applicant was rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
The candidature of the applicant has been considered by the respondents but he could not be appointed on compassionate grounds due to lower benchmarks obtained than the last selected candidate. However, in view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, taking into account the indigent condition of the family of the deceased employee, the respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in the next CRC meeting in accordance with rules regulating the matter.
The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associate M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.