The High Court
Case Details
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA WP(C) No. 102 of 2013 1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Director General, Geological Survey of India, 27, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-16. 3. The Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, Nongrim Hills, Shillong-3. 4. The Director (Drilling), Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, Nongrim Hills, Shillong-3. ……. Appellants/Petitioners Respondents - VRS – Sri Jems Mangsang Sangma, Sone of Late Oskar Marak, Resident of AMWI COTTAGE, Golden Estate, Nongthymmai, Shillong-793 014, Meghalaya. …… Respondent/Applicant Mrs. R Borah, CGC, Advocate for Appellants/Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
authority laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that 5 Tribunal (CAT) has erred in law in directing the petitioners to provide temporary engagement till compassionate appointment is given to the present respondent. 8. It is relevant to mention here that, the Office Memorandum No. 14014/19/2002-Estt (D), dated 5.05.03 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel & Training provides that, maximum time of a person’s name can be kept under consideration is 3(three) years where after, it is to be treated a finally closed. As such, direction could have been given to consider case of respondent for relevant three years after death of his father and further direction that meanwhile appointment on casual engagement to be provided is inconsistent to the guidelines, rules applicable to the present case. Annexure-3-B filed with the written statement shows that since 1999 till 2005 as many as 38(thirty eight) cases were pending with North Eastern Region (Shillong) of Geological Survey of India for compassionate appointment. Annexure-D filed with the additional written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) further chart of total No. of vacancies and Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and out of the total number of vacancies in candidates could have been considered against five percent of posts vacant for compassionate appointment. 9. In Managing Director APSRTC vrs. P.B. Ramma, the Apex Court has opined that, Court should not direct the 6 employer to create any new posts for appointment of kiths and kins of the employees on compassionate ground. 10. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to provide temporary engagement to the present respondent till his case is considered for compassionate appointment. In respect to the
Arguments
Mr. A Ahmed, Mr. Jilly Dutta, Mr. Polly Gogoi, Advocates for Respondents. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SEN (Oral : Hon’ble Prafulla C Pant, Chief Justice) By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 12.06.09 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 313 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has directed to provide temporary engagement to respondent Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma until vacancy is available for him in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ posts for compassionate appointment. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the affidavit on record. 3. Briefly stated, one Oskar Marak, (Father of the sole respondent) was serving as Drilling Assistant (Group-‘C’ Employee) in North Eastern Region, of Geological Survey of India who died in harness on 24.12.05 leaving behind 8(eight) members of his family including the eldest son Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma (respondent). On 4.04.06, widow of the deceased employee made a representation to the petitioners/appellants authorities to provide compassionate appointment to one of her sons to rehabilitate the distressed family. When after 2(two) months nothing was heard, the respondent Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma filed an application registered as O.A. No. 156 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.06 with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the grievances of the present respondent to do the needful within a period of 3(three) months. Consequently, on 3.07.06, the present respondent submitted his representation to the Local authority to provide him employment either in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ post. He was informed on 23.08.06 that his application has been sent for consideration to the authority concerned at Kolkata. However, on 23.12.06, his prayer was turned down. In the circumstances, he (the present respondent) filed another 3 application No. 313 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking compassionate appointment. 4. The present petitioners filed a written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and pleaded that since there was no vacancy available, as such, no compassionate appointment can be made. They took shelter of Office Memorandum dated 14.06.06 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, (for short DOPT) Govt. of India which provides that, compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum limit of 5% vacancies under direct recruitment quota in any Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post. It is further pleaded by the present petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 5.05.03 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India that, candidate’s name for compassionate ground could have been kept under consideration only for 3(three) years and that too only after evaluating the financial conditions vis-(cid:224)-vis other similar situated persons seeking compassionate appointment. The present petitioners further disclosed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) through written statement that vide letter dated 16.06.06 request was made by them to the Govt. of India to increase the 5% quota to accommodate long list of persons seeking for compassionate appointment but the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India did not agree to increase the limit. It is also stated in the written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) 4 that there are other senior persons seeking compassionate appointment in the Department, as such, at present the request for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. In the additional written statement, certain documents were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants argued before this Court that, the Tribunal has erred in law in directing the petitioners to provide temporary engagement to the present respondent till his case is considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In support of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied in law laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustand Aeronautics Ltd. Vrs. A Radhika Thirumalai (1996) 6 SCC 394, Himachal Road Transport Corporation vrs. Denesh Kumar (1996) 4 SCC 560 and Life Insurance Corporation of India vrs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718. 6. In all the above 3(three) authorities in substance, it has been laid down that Tribunal or High Court should not direct appointment on compassionate ground against the rule. It has been held that at the most, Court or Tribunal can direct to consider the case of the aspirant of compassionate appoint in accordance with the rules. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the above
Decision
rest of the direction, the impugned order is not interfered with regarding consideration of the case of the respondent against the 5% vacancy, if available in respect of the relevant years in which the respondent’s case could have been considered in accordance with rules and guidelines given by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India. 11. No order as to cost. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen) (Prafulla C Pant) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 15th November 2013 15th November 2013 V. Lyndem