AMANDEEP BHAGANIA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: -

(2.) AVERMENT has been made in the O.A. that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. His father one Sh. Amarjeet Lal was working as Telecom Mechanic in the BSNL at the time of his death on 10.08.2009 when he was still in service. The bereaved family received the retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 9,15,304/ -. The applicant is unmarried and is also handicapped due to amputation of his right thumb. After the death of his father, the applicant submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds in February, 2011. Since the appointment was not afforded to the applicant, he filed O.A. No. 1397/PB/2012 titled Amandeep Bhagania vs. BSNL. This O.A. was disposed of by CAT Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure A -3). In spite of the direction of the Tribunal dated 8.4.2013, the office of respondent No. 2 had passed the impugned order A -1 vide No. RD/R & E/R -48/870/11 dated 11.06.2013 (Annexure A -1) rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment on three premises i.e. (i) living in own house (ii) weightage point system comes total 22 positive points, whereas 55 marks are required for recommending the case for compassionate appointment and (iii) financial condition of the family living in penury was also not approved by the Competent Authority. Taking into consideration these reasons, the impugned order (Annexure A -1) has been passed by respondents totally ignoring that the respondent No. 3 while sending case to respondent No. 2 had granted 32 points as attached by respondent No. 2 with the impugned order Annexure A -1 and also attached as Annexure A -4 herein whereas no point has been awarded to the applicant qua his being handicapped for which there is provision in the point system communicated to the applicant under RTI Act, Annexure A -5 and also no point has been awarded on the premises that applicant is living in his own accommodation as he has not been living in his own accommodation and that is hit by Annexure A -7. Hence, coupled with all these points, the impugned order rejecting the compassionate appointment of the applicant is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and invalidated.

(3.) ARGUMENTS advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard when they reiterated the content of the O.A., Rejoinder and written statement respectively. It is seen from the material on record that nothing has been said in support of the claim of the applicant for quashing the compassionate appointment policy dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure A -2). This policy appears to be fair and has been upheld by the Courts/Tribunal from time to time. The policy provides for a transparent mechanism for assessing the claim of the applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds so that such appointment only goes to those who are truly in indigent circumstances and even among those the number of available vacancies has to be kept in view and recommendations are made on this basis. The cut -off points as per the policy circular of BSNL is 55 while the applicant secured only 22 points. Hence, the High Powered Committee of BSNL Corporate Office had no option but to reject the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicants claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been accorded fair consideration and hence the impugned orders do not merit judicial interference. The O.A. is therefore rejected. No costs.