Bom OA No.228/2012 on 17-01-2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.228/2012
Dated this Thursday the 17th day of January, 2013
CORAM:- HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)
Mr. Rajesh Punam Dhamne,
Age 35 years, Occ: Nil
R/at: Gaikwad Building,
Room No.3, Azad Nagar,
District: Thane - Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. K.J.Kamble)
1. Union of India
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Divisional Office Personnel Branch,
Mumbai C.S.T. 400 001
2. The Chief Health & Food Inspector,
Central Railway Kalyan,
District : Thane 421 301 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.D.Vadhavkar)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per : Smt. Leena Mehendale , Member (A)
Heard both the counsel.
2. The applicant is claiming compassionate appointment. However, the Railways have clearly brought out the picture before me that the deceased employee has only three sons, all of whom were major on the date of death which was on 05.11.2009. They all are married and employed as Sweeper, Casual Labourer, at low salary but employed nevertheless. The learned counsel for the applicant points out the poverty conditions in which they are living but it is also stated that father, while alive, was also living in the same premises. The counsel pleads that the applicant is claiming compassionate appointment so as to mitigate the conditions of poverty which arise out of low salary employment.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out Paras 16 & 17 of the Reply given by the Railways wherein it is stated that the application for compassionate appointment is rejected as they have no liabilities. He points out that after the death of the employee, settlement dues amounting to Rs.5,14,510/- have also been paid to the family members. He also cites SLP No.10504/1993 along with SLP No.2385/1994, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, which lays out that:
“a. Object of compassionate appointment, held, is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment.
b. Mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employee's death.
Another citation, 2012 2 SCC (L&S) 84, Union of India and another Vs. B.Kishore states that “the pre-conditions and purpose of compassionate appointment is indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee and is first pre-condition to bring case under scheme of compassionate appointment. Absence of indigence would turn compassionate appointment reservation in favour of dependants of employee who die while in service. It would be directly in conflict with ideal of equality guaranteed under Arts.14 and 16 of Constitution. Respondents might have been struggling for financial upliftment but he certainly cannot be described as an indigent or destitute”.
4. From the papers produced by the applicant as well as by the respondents, we find that the sudden death of the employee has not resulted in a sudden pecuniary crisis before the family considering that all the three sons are already in employment and also received settlement amount above Rs.5,00,000. There seems no merit in this case. OA is therefore, dismissed.
5. However, considering that the Respondents-Railways being a big organization, it would be better if they maintain a Division-wise Register of employees, who meet with death while in service and make comparative assessment of all the cases like that of family of the deceased employee, within a frequency of six months so as to maintain better transparency in the decision.
6. With these observations, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Smt. Leena Mehendale)