AJAY JOSEPH CHACKO NISHANTH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the applicant in O.A.No.295 of 2013 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and the respondents herein were the respondents therein. The petitioner moved the said Original Application seeking quashment of Annexures-A4 and A5 and a direction to the 2 nd respondent to extend employment assistance to him in terms of Annexure-A1 scheme. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions dismissed the Original Application as per order dated 28.1.2015. It is in the said circumstances, the above Original Petition is filed.

(2.) The facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the Original Application that culminated in Ext.P3 order are as follows:- The petitioner's father Sri.D.Chacko was a Group-B officer in Indian Audit and Accounts Department. He died in harness after serving the department for more than 38 years, on 15.10.2009. At the time of his death the petitioner was studying for MBA in United Kingdom. After completing his course he returned home and thereafter applied for employment assistance on 11.10.2010. The said application was rejected. As per Annexure.A4 the petitioner was intimated about the rejection of his application for employment assistance by the competent authority. On its receipt the petitioner sought for copy of the decision whereby the competent authority rejected his request. Consequently, Annexure.A5 decision of the competent authority was communicated. The contention of the petitioner is that the grounds for rejection given in Annexure.A5 are absolutely unsustainable. According to the petitioner the fact that the family was given an amount of Rs.14,03,460/- towards terminal benefits under different heads ought not to have been taken as a ground for denying him employment assistance. The contention of the petitioner is that his father had two wives and therefore, on receipt of the terminal benefits a considerable portion of the same was given to the other wife and children of his father. In such circumstances, it is contended that the entire amount of the terminal benefits had not actually reached the family of deceased Chacko consisting himself and his mother. It is the further contention that the reason assigned in Annexure.A5 that more than Rs.25,000/- has been sanctioned as monthly pension also ought not to have been taken as a ground for rejection of his application for employment assistance. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that employment assistance ought not to have been denied to him citing such reasons. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Annexures.A4 and A5 would reveal that all the relevant factors were duly considered by the competent authority before rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment assistance. Essentially, the contention is that employment assistance is to be provided only to a family in penurious condition so as to enable the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis. The said succor is to be made available only to a family in financial destitution. The learned counsel further contended that the very fact that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was abroad and pursued with his studies in MBA course there even after the death of his father would also indicate the financial condition of the family. Annexure-A3 would reveal that the Welfare Officer verified the financial situation of the family of the deceased employee consisting of the petitioner and his mother and found that the family owns 70 cents of land in Kottiyam. It was also reported thereunder that the mother of the petitioner/the widow of the deceased employee, was a teacher in an unaided school and she is drawing meagre monthly income from EPF. It is to such a financially sound family that the terminal benefits of more than Rs.14,00,000/- was granted, it is submitted. The petitioner's mother who is the widow is being granted family pension of Rs.25,318/-. In short, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that all those factors were duly considered by the Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application and since Ext.P3 order is not infected with any illegality no interference is called for.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.