NICHOLAS SURIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 15.7.2011 issued by the respondent No. 5, Divisional Engineer (Administration) Office of the Senior General Manager, BSNL, Ranchi, by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He also seeks direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground in lieu of death of his father Michael Surin, who died in harness, 26.2.2003.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have made an application for compassionate appointment on 9.3.2004 with all requisite papers. It is the contention of the petitioner that decision has been taken after a delay of almost eight years to reject the same on wholly illegal grounds by awarding lesser points prescribed under the criteria in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondents, that the petitioner should have been awarded 10 points on the question of accommodation as he has no house and lands but he has been awarded zero points by the respondents. The cut-off point, according to the petitioner, is fixed as 55 marks. The petitioner has been awarded 53 marks arbitrarily, which resulted denial of the compassionate appointment. The bone of contention on the part of the petitioner is that arbitrary allotment of zero points on the item of accommodation under the weightage point system as has been evolved by the respondents has been done in the case of the applicants. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a residential certificate-was submitted at the time of making application issued by the Circle Officer, Kamdara, district-Gumla, which, however, indicating 2.1 acres of land belonging in the name of the great grand father of the petitioner Lida Munda. However, the petitioner by way of rejoinder to the reply of the respondent has enclosed the genealogy table prepared by himself, according to which, the original property was in the name of his great grandfather Lida Munda, which has gone several fragmentation into smaller parcels. The petitioner being sibling of fourth generation of Lida Munda his great grandfather and son of Michael Surin. Therefore he only inherited much smaller portion of land out of total residential ancestral land in the name of his great grand father. He submits that he does not have any house and he is living in a rented house at Ranchi. In such circumstances, the respondents were obliged to take into account lack of proper accommodation of the petitioner while awarding points on that score. Therefore, impugned order rejecting his case for compassionate appointment is illegal and requires to be interfered with.

(3.) The respondents have supported the stand as contained in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSNL submits that a scientific basis has been evolved for consideration of the rival claims of such applicants, who seek appointment on compassionate ground. As per the policy, which is enclosed as Annexure-A-5 dated 27.6.2007, the weightage point system has been evolved providing for marks for such items such as (1) Dependant's weightage (2) basic family pension (3) left over service (4) applicant's weightage (5) Terminal benefits (6) accommodation. Negative points have also been evolved under the heads of Monthly Income of any surviving member of the family and belated requests. In such manner the assessment criteria have been laid down. Cases with 55 or more net points shall be prima-facie treated as eligible for consideration by Corporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate appointment. Cases of less than 55 marks shall be treated as non-indigent and rejected. Based upon such yardstick, the respondents have disclosed that the petitioner has fetched 53 points upon evaluation of his candidature on all such enumerated items under the weightage point system. It is true that on the ground of accommodation he has been awarded zero points based upon the residential certificate of petitioner himself which discloses that his ancestor had 2.1 acres of land. In such circumstances, he cannot be said to be having no accommodation, therefore, zero marks has been awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is now trying to improve his case stating that he has no house and he is living in a rented accommodation in Ranchi by filing a rejoinder to the further reply where he has produced genealogy table. In the circumstances, therefore, no infirmity should be attached to the impugned order of rejection by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.