CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. P TITTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in OA No. 675/2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench assails the order dated 27/05/2011, under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The father of the respondent, V. Pushkaran, who died on 13/10/2005, was a Telephone Mechanic under the petitioners. Seeking employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme the respondent, who is one among the three legal heirs, preferred an application before the petitioners along with requisite performa and consent from other legal heirs. The petitioners declined the request by Annexure - A1 order assailing which the respondent moved the Tribunal below. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27/05/2011 allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to reconsider the application filed by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, this petition was filed.

(2.) We have heard Smt. I. Sheela Devi, the learned standing counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the documents. The argument of the petitioners is that following the death of the father of the respondent a family pension of Rs.3,830/- was granted to the mother of the respondent. Towards the retiral benefits, a sum of Rs.5,41,823/- was also sanctioned. As per the norms set up by the petitioners, the respondent is not entitled to get employment on compassionate grounds.

(3.) It is not disputed that the family pension amount would hardly suffice to make both ends meet for a family consisting three adult members. Pension amount is much lower than the salary of a part time sweeper now a days get. Annexure - A6(1) would show that deceased had a liability amounting to Rs.1,86,506/- towards Cash and Hire Purchase Loan from the Ernakulam District Posts, Telecom & BSNL Employees' Co - operative Society Ltd. Annexure - A6(2) would show that as principal debtor, late Pushkaran had liability amounting to Rs. 1,43,313/- with Catholic Syrian Bank. In addition to that there is an indirect liability as guarantor for a sum of Rs.1,09,149/-. If the above amounts are deducted from the benefits granted to the respondent's family, practically there would be no balance to have anything to invest for an income to meet the sudden void created by the death of Pushkaran. Annexure - A6(3), a certificate issued from the Jesus Hospital, Karuvelipady, Cochin, would show that the mother of the respondent was undergoing treatment for lumbago and that she was advised to undergo a major operation for lumbar spine. There is no case for the petitioners that the respondent's family had any other source of income. So, on income basis and asset basis, the order of the Tribunal is anyway wrong.