Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

Shyama K. Nair Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. - (Central Administrative Tribunal) (06 Sep 2019)

Terms on which applications for compassionate appointment would be considered should be strictly adhered to and are subject to policy framed



The brief facts of the case are that, the Applicant is the daughter of Late Unnikrishnan K, who died in harness while working as Telecom Mechanic. The Applicant applied for employment under the scheme for employment of dependents of Government servants dying while in service. The application of the Applicant was considered by the Circle High Power Committee and the same was rejected by order.

The applicant submits that, the committee considered the application applying the system of weightage point system and found that, the Applicant is entitled to obtain only 27 points as against the minimum of 55 or above points which is considered for grant of appointment. The Respondents while rejecting the application of the applicant had not applied the provisions of the revised scheme which was in force. Therefore, the action of the Respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal with the present OA.

In the present case, the claim of the Applicant is that, the revised scheme should be followed in her case while considering her application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents have denied this fact in the reply statement contending that, even though the family gets family pension of Rs. 7,775 plus DA, the basic pension in the pre-revised scale without the DA factor i.e. Rs. 3,490 will be taken into account.

As per the letter dated 21st April, 2016 the pension calculated with uniform fitment benefit @ 30% of basic pay plus effective DA @ 78.2% as on 1.1.2007 is to be taken in to account. Since these guidelines have not come into force, the said pension amount has not been calculated. Therefore, the applicant will not get 20 points as claimed by her even if guidelines are implemented and may not even get the weightage points under the pension factor in the new scheme.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The dependents of a deceased employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that, it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the Respondents to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the Respondents.

In the instant case, the policy for compassionate appointment mandated that receipt of benefits received by family on account of welfare measures including family pension and death gratuity was required to be considered while assessing requirement of immediate means of sustenance. Therefore, as per the judgment of the apex court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar, the policy for compassionate appointment should be strictly adhered to by the Respondents while considering the claim for compassionate appointment. Application dismissed.

Relevant : State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar -MANU/SC/0081/2019


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved