SIBTAIN RIZVI Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4.11.2011 (Annexure -A -1 to this O.A.) whereby the request for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the applicant Late S.A. Mirza was working on the post of Phone Mechanic under the respondents. He died on 31.1.20004 at the age of 48 years leaving behind one widowed sister presently aged about 75 years, wife presently aged about 50 years, two sons including the applicant aged about 23 years and the second son aged about 21 years and one unmarried daughter aged about 24 years. The family of the applicant received Rs. 1,64,141/ - as Gratuity, Rs. 22,856/ - as G.P.F. balance, Rs. 37,865/ - as C.G.E. Insurance amount and Rs. 69,896/ - as leave encashment. The mother of the applicant is receiving Rs. 4,561/ - per month as family pension. The family is still residing in a rented house and they are not having property/house in their own name in Lucknow. A rent receipt dated 1.2.2008 for the month of February has also been placed at Annexure A -3 to this O.A. The applicant has graduate from Commerce side from Lucknow University in the year 2008. The retrial benefits received by the family were spent in the study of both the sons and one daughter of the deceased employee. The applicant submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 18.7.2006. When nothing was heard despite a lapse of about 2 years, the mother of the applicant made a representation on 18.3.2010. Then respondent No. 3 informed the applicant vide order/letter dated 4.11.2011 that the respondent No. 1 did not recommend the case of the applicant vide impugned order dated 26.9.2011. In response to the application under Right to Information Act, the applicant was informed that since 2004 as many as 10 meetings of Higher Power Committee have been held and 216 candidates have been appointed since then. The case of the applicant was considered (for the first time) in the meeting held on 10.11.2009, wherein the applicant was granted 71 marks. Eleven candidates were recommended in the meeting but the respondents did not disclose the marks obtained by those candidates under the garb of Section - 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act, 2005, allegedly being third party information. This was done by the respondents deliberately so that illegality, favoritism and discrimination may not be exposed. The above information also discloses that though a complete application was submitted on 18.7.2006 but the name of the applicant was not considered for about three years i.e. up to 10.11.2009. The lapses on the part of the respondents like misplacement of form of the applicant cannot be attributed to the applicant. Hence this O.A.

(2.) THE respondents contested the O.A. by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit. The pleas in respect of number of family members, absence of any property in their name, their living in a rented accommodation and the amount of retrial benefits have not been contested. In respect of the applicant's case, it has been said that in was considered by respondent No. 1 keeping in view the guidelines mentioned in DOPT O.M. dated 9.10.1998 in respect of various criterion such as assets, limited liabilities and finical benefits etc. and it was not found that the family is living in penury condition and therefore it was rejected.

(3.) ON an application moved by the applicant for summoning the record/minutes of the relevant meeting after hearing both the sides, the respondents were directed to file the comprehensive chart indicating the marks awarded to all the candidates in the meeting held on 10.11.2009. In compliance thereof the respondents have filed a chart alongwith Supplementary Counter Affidavit. Alongwith it, the basic scheme contained in O.M. dated 9.10.1998 issued by DOPT and weightage point system scheme dated 27.6.2007 issued by B.S.N.L., have also been filed.