AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
“a)To quash and/or set aside the impugned speaking order dated 6.10.2023 passed by the respondent authorities, rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the applicant.
b)To pass an order directing the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant in terms of DOPTOM dated 9.10.1998 modified on 16.1.2013.
c)To direct the respondent authorities to show cause for taking untrue fact in the impugned speaking order dated 6.10.2023.
d)An order directing the official respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records.
e)Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
3. Brief facts of the case
The applicant’s husband, Late Sukumar Mahato, while serving as a permanent Garden Attendant at A.J.C. Bose Indian Botanic Garden, BSI, Shibpur, Howrah had expired on 01.02.2014.
The applicant HAD submitted an application dated 13.06.2014 to the respondent authority seeking compassionate appointment to tide over the sudden financial crisis of her family, consisting of herself and minor children.
After repeated representations, a team from the department conducted a physical verification of the applicant’s financial status and had submitted a report in June 2018. As per the said report, the indigent condition of the family of the deceased employee was confirmed.
The claim of the application was initially rejected, vide order dated 11.10.2021 on the grounds of limitation.
Aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 959/2022. Vide order dated 21.06.2023, this Tribunal set aside the order dated 11.10.2021, taking note of her indigent condition as reflected in the verification report and had directed the competent authority to take a holistic view based on the policy prevalent at the time of the employee’s demise.
Pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the respondent authority had passed the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023, rejecting the claim of the applicant once again on the ground that the Administrative Ministry (MoEF&CC) has imposed a ban on compassionate appointments in the Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and has not agreed to lift the ban.
Hearing
We have heard Ld. Counsel for both sides and have perused the pleadings material on record.
The submissions made b the Ld. Counsel for the applicant are summarised below:Central Administrative Tribunal
The stand of the respondents regarding a total “ban” on compassionate appointments is contrary to the established policy of Government of India on the issue of appointment on compassionate ground as is evident from the reply of the Hon’ble Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension in response to an unstated question in the Lok Sabha (Annexure A-15).
The applicant’s first application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted in June 2014, and any delay in processing or decision-making is entirely attributable to the inaction on the part of the respondents.
The departmental verification report dated 04.06.2018 has explicitly recorded the indigent condition of the applicant’s family. Further, as is evident from reply received under RTI application, direct recruitment vacancies exist in Level-I posts.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the BSI had approached the Ministry to lift the restriction for making compassionate appointments, but since approval was not granted, the department has pressed it’s inability to process the application for appointment on compassionate ground.
Findings
A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 reveals that the respondents have neither disputed the applicant’s indigent financial status nor have denied the existence of the departmental inquiry report dated 04.06.2018. The sole reason assigned for rejection is a ban on compassionate appointment imposed by the Administrative Ministry.
It is a well-settled proposition of law that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment framed by the Government of India (DoPT OM dated 09.10.1998, as amended from time to time is designed as a welfare measure to alleviate financial hardship resulting from the death of an employee in harness. Since the said policy has not been withdrawn by the Department of Personnel & Training, the Ministry of Environment & Forests cannot take the plea.
Furthermore, the applicant had applied in 2014, and her claim was repeatedly delayed due to departmental processing. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay and default to deny legitimate consideration of a candidate whose indigence stands verified by their own committee.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned Speaking Order under Serial No. BSI/Adm./3741 dated 06.10.2023 passed by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure A-11) is found to be unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the respondents with the following directions:
Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, MoEF&CC) and Respondent No. 3 (Director, BSI) are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with the extant guidelines on the subject issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India.
The case of the applicant shall be placed before the next meeting of the Committee for Compassionate Appointment. The said committee will make its recommendation based on the comparative merit and indigent condition of the applicant and the available vacancies.
The entire exercise shall be completed and a fresh reasoned speaking order will be passed by the competent respondent authority and communicated to the applicant, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Original Application (O.A. No. 350/00996/2024) is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.