Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J).
1. In this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
'(a) Allow the original application of the applicant and directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant to reconsider the claim of the applicant twice in another year, i.e., in the year 2001 and 2012 and if in these years, he has not been considered, they may be directed to consider the claim of the applicant against next coming vacancy in terms of Rules and regulations.
(b) To direct the respondents to produce the minutes of screening committee which speaks rejection of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment so that ingredients which was considered by the respondents could be taken into consideration by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.'
2. Brief facts: Shri Munshi Ram, father of the applicant, while working as a Daftri/Peon in the respondent-Department, died in harness on 23.6.2007, leaving behind his son (the applicant) and two daughters. The applicant’s mother had died much before the death of his father, i.e., the deceased Government servant. The applicant submitted an application dated 9.7.2007 and a further application in the prescribed proforma on 21.9.2008 seeking consideration of his case for employment assistance on compassionate ground. The respondent-Department, vide letter dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure A/1) intimated the applicant that the Welfare Committee, after consideration of his case as per extant rules, rejected his request for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, applicant submitted a representation and also served a legal notice on 11.1.2012 (Annexure A/2 and A/3 respectively). There being no response, the applicant filed the present O.A. on 20.4.2012. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent-Department has failed to consider his request for compassionate appointment in its proper perspective and has rejected the same by a non-speaking order, vide Annexure A/1 and without application of mind.
3. Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. It is, inter alia, stated by the respondents that the applicant was not a dependent member of the family of the deceased employee on the date of his death, i.e., 23.6.2007, because he was aged 35 years old and none of the family members was eligible to get family pension and that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is also stated that there were 21 applications for compassionate appointment including that of the applicant, pending before the respondent-Department. The respondent-Department had devised a grading system on a hundred point scale by taking into account various parameters, such as (i) family pension, (ii) terminal benefits, (iii) monthly income and income from property, (iv) movable/immovable property, (v) number of dependants, (vi) number of unmarried daughters, (vii) number of minor children, and (viii) left over service. The applicant did not come within the third position and hence the Welfare Committee did not recommend his name for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant’s case was rejected after proper application of mind, taking into consideration various factors of the applicants case as well as other applicants. Copies of the agenda and record of discussion of the meeting of the Welfare Committee when met on 16.4.2010 and 25.8.2010 are filed as Annexure R/1 collectively.
4. Refuting the stand taken by the respondents, the applicant has filed a rejoinder reply wherein, besides reiterating more or less same averments as in the O.A., it has been stated that the respondent-Department, instead of rejecting his request, ought to have considered his case in accordance with the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment as per the DoP&T’s O.M. dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure 1 to the rejoinder reply).
5. I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. On a perusal of the agenda for the meeting of the Welfare Committee, the list of deceased employees and their dependants who had applied for compassionate appointment, the statement showing vacancies released by Screening Committee and calculation of 5% vacancies by clubbing, the statement showing grade point-wise list, the minutes of the meeting of the Welfare Committee for compassionate appointment held on 16.4.2010, the agenda for Welfare Committee’s meeting dated 25.8.2010, the letter dated 24.11.2010, and the record of deliberations of the Selection Committee for compassionate appointment (Annexure R/1 collectively), I find that the case of the applicant and cases of other candidates were duly considered by the Welfare Committee/Selection Committee constituted by the respondent-Department for the purpose. Out of 21 applications, the applications of five candidates including the applicant were rejected because on the date of death of the deceased employees the said five applicants were not dependent family members of the deceased employees. It was found that the applicant was 36 years old and none in the family was eligible for family pension as on the date of death of the deceased employee. The name of the applicant appeared at sl.no.20 in the statement showing grade point wise list which was prepared by the respondent-Department on the basis of the information supplied by the applicant and other candidates. Against the name of the applicant, it was found that he was aged 36 years on 23.6.2007, i.e., the date of death of his father, that none was eligible for family pension, that he received retirement benefits of Rs.2,72,034/-, that there was no dependent family member, that his father had been left with two years of service ahead of his retirement, and that in total he was awarded 2 grade points. It was also observed by the Welfare Committee/Selection Committee that ‘dependant family member’, as per rules, in the case of a married Government servant, is the spouse, or a son, or a daughter, who was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his death in harness, and that as per CCS (Pension) Rules, for the purpose of grant of family pension, an unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter up to the date of her marriage/remarriage or till the date she starts earning or till the age of 25 years, whichever is earlier, is to be treated as dependent family member. Therefore, the applicant was found ineligible to be considered for compassionate appointment, and his application was rejected by the respondent-Department. After carefully going through the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and the materials produced by the respondent-Department along with their counter reply, I find that the applicant’s case was duly considered by the respondent-Department in accordance with the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, and that as the applicant was 35 years old on the date of death of his father, he was not a dependent family member of the deceased Government servant and as he was ineligible to be considered for such appointment, his request was rejected. The decision of the competent authority rejecting the applicant’s request was simply conveyed by the concerned officer, vide his letter dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure A/1). I also find that the decision of the competent authority was based on the materials produced by the respondent-Department along with their counter reply. Although the applicant laid emphasis on his representation dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure A/7) in which he had purportedly indicated that his two sisters were unmarried and depending on the deceased employee, yet the such statement made by the applicant in the said representation dated 24.10.2007 does not go to prove that his two sisters were unmarried at the time of death of his father. Admittedly, in response to the respondent-Department’s letter dated 9.7.2008 the applicant had submitted the application in the prescribed proforma on 21.9.2008. The applicant has not produced the copy of the said application in the prescribed proforma. Thus, the applicant has not been able to substantiate his plea that that at the time of death of his father there were two unmarried daughters who were depending on the deceased Government servant, more so when on the basis of information furnished by the applicant hims
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
elf, the respondent-Department has found that there were no unmarried daughters on the date of death of the deceased Government servant. Had there been two unmarried daughters, certainly a claim could have been made for family pension. Non-payment of family pension to any of the unmarried daughters till the date of marriage or till the date of her earning clearly goes to show that the applicants father died in harness leaving behind him any unmarried and dependent daughter. In view of this also, I do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant. 7. In the light of above discussions, I hold that that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-Department rejecting the applicant’s request for providing him compassionate appointment and that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the relief claimed by him in the O.A. 8. In the result, the O.A. being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.