Bom OA No.576/2011 on ?????-2012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.

O.A.No.576/2011

Dated this ________ the ___ Day of _________, 2012

Coram : Hon'ble Smt.Leena Mehendale, Member (A).

1.  Shri Suresh Bhika Borse,
    Ex-Diesel Pump Driver Loco/
    Bhusawal,
    R/at: Devidas Phalak Nagar,
    Behind D.L. Hindi High School,
    Plot No.71, Bhusawal.

2.  Shri Vijay Kumar Suresh Borse,
    R/at: Devidas Phalak Nagar,
    Behind D.L. Hindi High School,
    Plot No.71, Bhusawal.  ..Applicants.

( By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani ).

Versus

1.  Union of India, through
    the General Manager,
    Central Railway,
    Head Quarters,
    Central Railway, CSTM,
    Mumbai – 400 001.

2.  Divisional Railway Manager,
    Central Railway,
    Bhusawal Division,
    Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon-425201.  ..Respondents.

( By Advocate Shri R.R. Shetty ).

O R D E R
Per : Smt.Leena Mehendale, Member (A).
This Original Application is filed on 29.06.2011 by the two Applicants who are father and son, with a request for compassionate appointment to the son.  The peculiarity of this matter is that it is not a routine case of compassionate appointment, as some special circumstances are attached to it.
2. The first Applicant, namely, Suresh Borse was born in 1955 and was appointed in the Central Railway on the post of Khalasi in 1978 and further promoted as Diesel Pump Driver grade-II, both being Group 'D' posts.  His actual date of retirement in normal course would be 31.01.2015.  However, with effect from 17.07.2003, he was declared unfit for B-I and B-II Category and was medically       de-categorized as per the current Rules in the Railways.  He was given a supernumerary posting pending identification of a suitable alternative posting. As an alternative arrangement he was sent to Commercial Department for training as Commercial Clerk.  However, being almost illiterate he could not pass the training and once again was required to be kept on supernumerary post.  This situation continued till 2008.  On 25.11.2008, he gave an application for voluntary retirement (Annexure A-3) requesting for voluntary retirement specifically quoting the subject of his application  “Sub: Appointment on compassionate grounds of ward/spouse of medically de-categorized staff on the Railways.”  Therein he pointed out the Railway Board's Circular L.No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006 and mentioned specifically that as required under the said circular he still had more than 5 years remaining service and, therefore, his son may be given compassionate appointment and he may be allowed to retire as a voluntary retirement.
3. The request for volunary retirement was accepted vide Revisionary Authority's letter dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure A-5) and he was relieved from his duties with effect from 28.02.2009.  However, nothing was stated about his request for compassionate appointment to his son in accordance with the Railway Board's Circular dated 14.06.2006, nor about his subsequent representation on the same subject dated 01.01.2009. By a separate letter dated 28.08.2009 at Annexure A-1 he was informed that his request for compassionate appointment to his son was rejected on the ground that the family condition was not sufficiently indigent and that his two daughters were already married.
4. Heard both the learned counsels and gone through their written and oral pleadings carefully.  The learned counsel on behalf of the Applicants has stressed two grounds, first being that as per the procedure of the Railway Authorities, an investigation report is to be submitted in connection with compassionate appointment by an Inspector of the Railway themselves and the format of the report requires that the “Welfare Inspector should certify in his own handwriting whether the case deserves compassionate appointment or otherwise.”  To this question in the format the said Inspector had reported on 24.03.2009 that the case deserves for compassionate appointment.  Secondly and more importantly the Railway Circular quoted at Annexure A-7 dated 14.06.2006 whose reference was made at the first application for voluntary retirement gives a scope for appointment of the son as the first Applicant fulfills condition mentioned at Para 4(a) and 4(b).
5. The learned counsel for the Respondents mainly argued that the decision of the Respondent/Department was taken as the condition of the Applicant was not considered to be sufficiently indigent and hence the case was eligible for compassionate appointment.  This has already been communicated and there is no reason to revise the same.
6. I have gone through all the papers and most importantly the Railawy Circular dated 14.06.2006.  I find that as in the case of other departments the Railways have a provision of giving compassionate appointment to the survivors of a deceased employee in the Group 'D' in case death occurs while in service.  However, an additional special dispensation has also been provided to cover the cases of such people who became handicapped owing to some medical conditions.  The ward of such person have also been considered as eligible as seen from Annexure A-7.  The wording of the impugned order dated 28.08.2009 makes it clear that the decision has not been taken with due consideration  to  the  Railway  Circular at Annexure A-7.
6. On the other hand, I find that from the  initial stage, the application dated 25.11.2008 submitted by the first Applicant was very specific on the request for appointment of medically decategorized staff.  This initial application itself disclosed that his two daughters were married, so he has not hidden any fact from the authorities.  Furthermore, I find sufficient reason to conclude that the special category of medically decategorized people was not applied to the first Applicant while rejecting his request for compassionate appointment to his son.  So far as question of indigency is concerned the normal procedure is to consider the bunch of applications and decide the relative indigency and give compassionate appointments to the extent of available vacancies during the period of a quarter or six months or one year as per the practice of the Department.  This has definitely not been done, therefore, it does not appear that the case of the Applicant was bunched along with other possible pending applications for compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected on the ground of comparative indigency.
7. It is also my view that the Railway authorities have done a commendable job of providing a special rule to cover the cases of medically handicapped Group D employees.  It is also to be noted that such people have a greater requirement of monetary help in view of their nedical need.  However, at the time of implementation, the authorities seem to have overlooked this laudable provision.
8. In view of this and in view of the special provisions laid down by Railway Authorities as mentioned at Annexure A-7, I quashed the impugned order dated 28.08.2009 with a direction to the Railway Authorities to give a suitable appointment to the Applicant No.2 in Group 'C' or 'D' as the case may be in which he is eligible for compassionate appointment.
8. No order as to costs.

(Smt.Leena Mehendale)
    Member (A).
H.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOMBAY BENCH : MUMBAI
---

Dated : 12.04.2012.

To

The Head of Department,
CAT, Bombay Bench.

Sir,
I have prepared the judgement in OA No. 576/2011.  Kindly authorise any Member of CAT, Bombay Bench to pronounce the same on my behalf.

(LEENA MEHENDALE)
      MEMBER (A)