MAYUR PARSHOTTAMBHAI PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is challenging Annexure -A/1 order of the respondents declining his request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Applicant's father was a Postman in the service of respondents, expired on 4.12.2007. On 2.8.2008 applicant submitted Annexure -A/2 request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Nothing was heard for the next three years. On 27.9.2011 Annexure -A/3 communication was issued by the respondents informing that applicant's case has not been recommended. However, on the next day vide Annexure -A/4 communication dated 28.9.2011 applicant was informed that respondents had kept Annexure -A/3 order in abeyance till further orders. Nothing was heard from the respondents thereafter. As nearly five years have passed since Annexure -A/2 request, the applicant submitted Annexure -A/5 representation in June 2013 requesting to consider his case. In response to Annexure -A/5 representation applicant received the impugned Annexure -A/1 communication dated 1.8.2013, rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondents filed a reply stating at the outset that this OA is belated because the applicant had already been informed vide Annexure -A/3 dated 27.9.2011 that his case was not recommended. The applicant ought to have approached the Tribunal within the prescribed time i.e. on or before 26.9.2012. The present OA was filed in November, 2013 without any application for condonation of delay and hence the OA is not maintainable on the ground of delay. In Annexure -A/2 application submitted by the applicant it was stated that the family had received Rs. 4,17,790/ - towards the terminal dues of his father. It was also stated that the only liability of the family is the marriage of a son. No other existing liability was stated in the said application. There were no minor dependants for the deceased employee. The department considered the applicant's case in the Circle Selection/Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'CSC') convened on 24.8.2011 and 16.9.2011. Out of 44 applicant's, 4 most deserving candidates were recommended by the CSC. The Department considered all 44 cases by awarding weightage points in accordance with the instructions in Annexure -R/1 OM introduced by the Department which is again based on the 1998 scheme for compassionate appointment formulated by DoPT. After implementation of 6th Pay Commission Group 'D' post in which appointments were made on compassionate grounds were abolished and lower posts available for such appointment is Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) for which minimum qualifications prescribed as per Annexure -R/2 is SSC or matriculation or any other equivalent examination pass. As applicant has not passed SSC examination he is not eligible for the post of MTS to be filled up on compassionate grounds. Applicant has made Annexure -A/5 representation knowing well that he has no statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision or representation against Annexure -A/3 order. The contention of the applicant that his family had spent Rs. 1,80,000/ - for clearing debt out of the terminal dues received by the family is an afterthought. The only liability he has stated in the application form was the marriage of a son. Respondents pray for dismissing the OA

(2.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating his contentions in the OA and also stating that the applicant was neither aware nor was he informed about the requirement of mentioning the family debts.

(3.) THE reliefs sought for by the applicant in this OA are: