Ved Prakash Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The father of the applicant died in harness on 13.11.2008 while working as a Lower Division Clerk, leaving behind his widow and two sons including the applicant. The applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.12.2008. As his claim was not decided, he filed O.A. No. 922 of 2011, which was disposed of on 11.08.2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide his claim on merit. Despite submitting the required pro forma and documents, his claim remained undecided. He again filed O.A. No. 1712 of 2014, which was allowed on 10.05.2019 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider his claim within two months. However, the respondents again rejected his claim vide order dated 05.08.2019. The applicant contends that he was awarded only 25 grading points instead of 43 due to incorrect assessment of marks relating to dependent family members and family property. Despite submitting objections on 13.03.2020, his grievance was not redressed. Hence, he has filed the present Original Application challenging the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the allegations made in the O.A. It has been stated that the applicant was repeatedly asked to submit the prescribed pro forma, as the format was revised from time to time. The applicant submitted the required documents, including no objection affidavits from his family members. His claim was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, which awarded him 25 grading points, whereas the cut-off for appointment to the post of Tax Assistant was 32 points. Accordingly, he was not recommended for appointment due to his lower grading points. The respondents further submit that the applicant was informed of the marks awarded to him and was given an opportunity to raise objections. However, they state that his claim was assessed in accordance with the applicable criteria. The respondents, therefore, contend that the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 suffers from no illegality or infirmity and thus the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Mr. M.K Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents have wrongly rejected the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment without properly considering the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family. It is contended that the applicant’s father was the sole breadwinner of the family and, after his death, the family faced serious financial hardship. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents wrongly awarded only 25 grading points to the applicant by counting only one dependent family member instead of three and by incorrectly assessing the value of the family property. He next submitted that applicant was entitled to 43 grading points and, therefore, his claim was wrongly rejected despite his having a higher merit score than the cut-off points of 32. It is further contended that, despite the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 922 of 2011 and O.A. No. 1712 of 2014, the respondents failed to properly reconsider the applicant’s claim. The impugned order dated 05.08.2019 is also challenged on the ground that the respondents did not disclose the proper calculation and detailed basis of the grading points awarded to the applicant, thereby making the decision arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant was repeatedly asked to submit the required pro forma and documents, which he duly furnished, but his claim was not considered fairly. It is argued that the respondents failed to consider the relevant family circumstances and financial hardship of the applicant in accordance with the object of the compassionate appointment scheme. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and criteria.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in accordance with the applicable instructions and criteria. The committee, in its meeting dated 17.04.2018, considered the pending applications and awarded grading points on the prescribed parameters. The matter was subsequently reviewed by the High Power Committee on 11.02.2019. It is further submitted that, under the criteria adopted by the committee, a son who had crossed the age of 25 years at the time of the death of the government servant was not treated as a wholly dependent family member for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Since the applicant was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father’s death, the High Power Committee found him ineligible and did not award him any grading points. Although the earlier committee had awarded grading points to the applicant, the same were not retained after review by the High Power Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the last candidate recommended for appointment under the recommendations dated 17.04.2018 had secured 47 grading points. The applicant was, therefore, not eligible for appointment under the criteria applied by the committee. It is contended that the respondents considered the applicant’s case in accordance with the applicable instructions and no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the respondents pray that the O.A. be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

The issue for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal.

It is evident from the record that the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent committee. The applicant has challenged the grading points awarded to him and contended that his family circumstances and the number of dependent family members were not properly considered. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that the applicant was not considered for compassionate appointment as he was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father’s death.

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The claim has to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. The earlier orders were passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 922 of 2011 and O.A. No. 1712 of 2014 directing the respondents to consider or reconsider the applicant’s claim. However, those orders did not direct the respondents to appoint the applicant. The question, therefore, is whether his claim was considered in accordance with the applicable scheme.

From the impugned order, it appears that the applicant’s claim was rejected on the ground that he was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father’s death. I am of the view that the applicant’s claim could not have been rejected solely on this ground. If the applicant was dependent on the income of the deceased employee, his claim was required to be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme, without rejecting it on the ground of age. The competent committee was required to examine his case on the basis of the relevant eligibility conditions and other applicable criteria. Therefore, the decision of the committee, to the extent that it rejected the applicant’s claim solely on the ground of his age, cannot be sustained. Since applicant has not challenged the previous orders passed by the committee concerned, thus, submission raised on behalf of the applicant assailing the previous orders need no interference.

In view of the above, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the competent Circle Relaxation Committee to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment whenever the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee is convened. While reconsidering the claim, the Committee shall not reject it merely on the ground that the applicant was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father’s death. The Committee shall consider his case in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions and other relevant criteria. It shall also prepare a detailed chart showing the marks awarded to the applicant under each parameter, along with reasons for awarding or not awarding marks under each head. The Committee shall thereafter take a fresh and reasoned decision and communicate the same to the applicant.

With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.