ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Vs. BHARATBHAI GAFURBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging the decision dated 10.02.2016 passed in Original Application No.260 of 2014, whereby directions are given to the petitioners to reconsider the claim of the applicant-respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground from the date on which any dependent of the BSNL employee who secured the equal number of points has been recommended and appointed. Further, the respondents were directed to complete exercise of considering the case of the applicant as soon as possible, but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. According to the petitioner-BSNL, father of the present respondent died in harness while working as regular Majdoor and original applicant was adopted son of the deceased employee. On 05.02.2003, an application was made for details of credit amount in GPF account, pension amount and for other benefits and along with the above application, adoption deed dated 08.01.2013 was annexed, which was executed a few days before death of the deceased employee. While staking claim for the above amount, no mention was made about appointment on compassionate ground. Even subsequently also, the applicant addressed letter with regard to family pension, in which also, there was no claim about appointment on compassionate ground. At the same time, Jayaben approached BSNL for grant of compassionate appointment and retirement dues of the deceased employee, who was father of said Jayaben and dispute persisted for rightful claim in dues of deceased employee with Department between daughter of deceased employee and adopted son-claimant therein and respondent herein. Upon resolution of dispute and on availability of succession certificate, the Department cleared all requisite dues to be paid and belated claim was made by respondent for compassionate appointment and it was considered as per the existing scheme framed in accordance with law, whereby a method was adopted to award points under various heads to determine eligibility of the claimant, viz. legal heir and survivor of deceased employee. That all Heads of Telecom Circles were informed about compassionate ground appointment (CGA) by communication dated 27.06.2007 and Annexure-1 to the above communication provided weightage point system for assessment of indigent condition which included items with positive points (A) and items with negative points (B)..

(2.) Thus, according to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the case of the claimant-respondent herein was considered and was found ineligible to be considered and appointed on compassionate ground.

(3.) In the facts of the present case, as per the guidelines of year 2007 of CGA, the respondent claimant failed to get 55 points necessary for consideration of his claim for CGA and in absence of any material on record about receipt of application dated 14.08.2003, formula of weightage point applied by the Department cannot be said to be contrary to the scheme of 2007 and method adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at a finding about eligibility of the respondent claimant is based on incorrect application of the formula of the weightage point. Under no circumstance, the Tribunal could have come to conclusion that deduction of 5 point for 6 months and 23 days is not acceptable and that Department is not justified in deducting 25 points out of total 60 points. Learned Counsel for the petitioners emphasized and submitted that conclusions drawn in para-23 are not only perverse but under no circumstance, could not have been reached. If the items with positive points and items with negative points are considered, a simple arithmetic calculation about total weightage point disentitled the respondent claimant from being considered and appointed on compassionate ground.