RAJ KAMAL GAGRAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha for the respondentRailways.

(2.) Applicant's claim for compassionate appointment on death of his father in harness on 22nd July, 2015 while working as Chief Office Superintendent in S.E. Central Railway, Raigarh has been rejected firstly on 22nd December, 2016 (Annexure 2) and again on reconsideration by Annexure-3 dated 04th March, 2016. Being aggrieved, he preferred Original Application No. 051/00188 of 2017 before learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi. By impugned order dated 17th December, 2018, learned Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the applicant was 29 years of age, his sister was 27 years of age and were having educational qualification of postgraduate and it appeared that they were not the liability of the deceased-employee. Besides that, the family was in possession of agricultural land whose annual income is Rs. 35,000/- per annum. Death-cum-retirement dues of the deceased which the family received was more than Rs. 20 lakhs. The widow is getting family pension @ Rs. 12,270/- + D.A. They are able to maintain their livelihood. Therefore, as per provisions of Master Circular No. 16 (Annexure-5), applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal rejected the plea of the applicant that his case was regretted only on the ground that the superannuation of his father was within eight months. Learned Tribunal observed that the case of the applicant was considered in detail after receipt of reply to queries and no sufficient ground was established for consideration of his claim as against other more deserving dependants of other deceased railway employee. Being aggrieved, applicant is before us in the present writ petition.

(3.) Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and thereafter supplementary counter-affidavit on being specifically directed vide order dated 02nd November, 2020. They have brought on record, the relevant extracts of the file containing the decision making process on the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The first order of rejection (Annexure-2 dated 22nd December, 2015) issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer for Senior Divisional Personnel Officer indicates that this case was not considered by the competent authority since the employee had died 8 months before his superannuation and there were no sufficient grounds since the aim of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate assistance to the bereaved family. On further representation (Annexure-3 dated 04th March, 2016) his claim was regretted by letter dated 09th March, 2017 (Annexure-4) issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer for Senior Divisional Personnel Officer stating that on reconsideration, the competent authority has regretted the case yet again.