At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. S.N. TERDAL
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Applicant: D.N. Sharma, N. Baruah, Advocates. For the Respondents: R. Hazarika, Addl. CGSC.
1. This O.A. has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 praying for setting aside the order and communication No.E2/WLF/CRC/09 dated 12.07.2016 rejecting the application of the Applicant for compassionate appointment.
2. Heard Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the Respondents. Perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
3. The relevant facts are that the mother of the Applicant was working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Branch Post Master, Adalbari Branch Post Office in account with Mussalpur S.O. under Nalbari Head Post Offices. Due to physical unfitness, she applied for retirement on medical invalidation which was accepted by the concerned authorities w.e.f. 24.06.2013. The Applicant being the only son submitted a formal application for appointing him on compassionate ground. The Respondents placed the application of the Applicant before Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) held on 24.06.2016. But the CRC did not recommend the case of the Applicant as his mother was invalidated at the age of 59 years, whereas for consideration of his application as per Rules, said medical invalidation should have been before attaining 55 years.
4. The learned Addl. CGSC for the Respondents brought to the notice of the court the relevant instructions regarding compassionate appointment which is extracted below:-
'Compassionate Appointments to Dependants
(1) Instructions regarding Compassionate appointment. - The question of providing some ED posts to dependents of ED Agents in case of death/infirmity of an ED Agent has been under consideration of the Government for quite some time past. It has now been decided that a suitable job in ED cadre may be offered to one dependant of an ED official who dies while in service leaving the family in indigent circumstances, subject to the conditions applicable to regular employees who die while in service or retire on invalid pension. Such employment to the dependant should, however, be given only in very hard and exceptional cases.
2. The orders contained in this Office Letters No.43-246/77-Pen., dated 8-3-1978 and No. 43-231/78-Pen., dated 17-2-1979, for giving preference to SC and ST and retired Army Postal Service candidates, etc., will not be applicable in such cases.'
5. The learned Addl. CGSC for the Respondents further referred to para 2 (A) (a) (b) (c) and para 18 (g) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment which are extracted below:-
SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO WHOM APPLICABLE
To a dependent family member-
(A) of a Government servant who -
(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or
(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or
(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or'
(g) Any request to increase the upper age-limit of 55 years for retirement on medical grounds prescribed in para 2 (A) (b) and (c) above in respect of Group ‘A’/’B’/’C’ Government servants and to bring it at par with the upper age-limit of 57 years prescribed therein for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants on the ground that the age of retirement has recently (May, 1998) been raised from 58 years to 60 years from Group ‘A’/’B’/’C’ Government servants (which is at par with the age of retirement of 60 years applicable to erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants) or on any other ground should invariably be rejected so as to ensure that the benefit of compassionate appointment available under the scheme is not misused by seeking retirement on medical grounds at the fag end of one’s career and also keeping in view the fact that the higher upper age-limit of 57 years has been prescribed therein for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants for the reason that they are low paid Government servants who get meagre invalid pension is comparison to others.'
6. The learned counsel for the Applicant also relied upon the above said Rules but, however, submitted that GDS are being EDAs, their age of retention in service is up to 65 years whereas the age of superannuation of regular Govt. servants is 60 years. Accordingly, the age of 55 years in case of Govt. servants should be construed as up to the age of 60 years in the case of GDSs. In support of his contentions, he submitted an extract of D.G. P & T Letter No. 43-84/80-Pen dated 30.01.1981 which is extracted below:-
'An extract of D G.P&T Letter No. 43-84/80-Pen dated 30.01.1981
Method of Recruitment.
The minimum age limit for employment as ED agents will be 18 years and maximum age up to which an ED agent can be retained in service will be 65 veers. The Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, may consider relaxation of this age – limit in exceptional cases.'
7. Though the maximum age of retention of GDS is 65 years, yet admittedly, there are no separate Rules regarding compassionate appoint
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ment in case of GDSs. The Rules which have been specifically relied by both the parties which are extracted above specifically state that in so far as the compassionate appointment in case of the dependents of GDSs is concerned the Rules applicable to regular Govt. servant are applicable. Further, as submitted by the Respondents, the age relaxation requested by Group A, B & C Govt. servants from upper age limit of 55 years to 58 years is also rejected as per para 18 (g) extracted above. In view of the above facts and rules, the O.A. is devoid of merit. 8. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.