AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Shri Rakesh Sinha for the Union of India. No one appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the revised call.
The Union of India, through the General Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Mumbai and the Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Bareilly Cantt, has prayed for setting aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1292 of 2001 Smt. Sitara Begam v. Union of India and another dated 30.7.2004, directing the Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Bareilly Cantt., after quashing the order, by which the application for compassionate appointment was rejected, to consider the application for compassionate ground in accordance with the law and in the light of the scheme and instructions referred to in the judgment within three months.
The husband of Smt. Sitara Begum-Respondent No. 1 was employed in the Canteen Stores Department of Defence at Bareilly. He died in harness on 20.9.1999. She applied for compassionate appointment of her 4th son Shri Arshad Ali-Respondent No. 4. The application was rejected on 23.11.2000 on the ground that as per rules, compassionate appointment is given to the dependent of deceased family where there is no earning member. Since her three sons are already employed, and the condition of her family is not so bad economically, her case cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.
The second representation made by the applicant on 8.12.2000 was rejected on 22.1.2001 with following orders:
Reference your representation dated 08 Dec. 2000 received through Depot Manager Bareilly on 16 Dec. 2000.
The competent authority has carefully re-examined your case for employment on compassionate ground of your fourth son Sri Arshad Ali and rejected.
The Tribunal found that the consideration of compassionate appointment in Central Government is covered by the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training). The circular provides that various parameters of comparatively balanced and objective assessment of requests of really deserving candidates for compassionate appointment. Such factors are family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income of earning members, income from property, movable property and immovable property, number of dependents, number of unmarried daughter, number of minor children and left over service of the deceased Government servant. The Tribunal took into account the allegations made by Smt. Sitara Begum-Respondent No. 1 that her three sons are living separately and was not maintaining her. The Tribunal also found that the Department has not considered the Petitioner''s case that she is not being maintained by her three sons, and observed that the exercise for determining comparative merits appears to have been undertaken in a cryptic manner, and thus the matter requires to be reconsidered.
Shri Rakesh Sinha, learned Counsel for Appellants submits that the department had considered the employment of the three sons of the deceased to be sufficient ground to find that the family was not suffering any financial distress. He submits that where the family of the deceased government servant has sufficient means, and income through the three sons, the fourth son cannot be considered for employment only on the plea that three sons are not maintaining the widow who is receiving family pension. The Department is not supposed to have a machinery to verify such facts. The income has to be taken as income of the family as a whole and not whether the widow is not maintained from such income. A family, in which three sons are already employed, cannot be said to be in such a poor financial condition that the employment on compassion may be considered for the fourth son.
In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Department had given good and sufficient reasons to reject the application for compassionate appointment. The three sons of Respondent No. 1 are admittedly employed. The family was not left in such a financial distress that the fourth son could be considered for compassionate appointment.
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 30.7.2004 in Original Application No. 1292 of 2001 is set aside.