Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1315
[2010(5) ADJ 241 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND KASHI NATH PANDEY, JJ
Smt. RAM RATI AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45203 of 2008, decided on 16th April, 2010)
Counsel :
Satish Mandhyan for the Petitioners; Govind Saran for the Respondents.
Headnote:Appointment—Compassionate appointment—Principles for consideration of—Reiterated—In the instant case, on death of father of claimant, his mother was appointed in railway service in 1984—She remained in service for 16 years—Thereafter, she was declared medically disable as she lost her eye-sight, four and half years before her retirement—He only son, who was 26 years old, was married having three sons, was already employed applied for compassionate appointment—Mother after being declared medically disabled had received Rs. 71,825 towards invalidation and was receiving monthly pension of Rs. 1725 and D.A. of Rs. 805 per month, as exgratia in lieu of her husband's service—She had one Bigha and five Biswas of agricultural land also in her village—Railway authorities in view of such financial status of mother and fact that claimant son was already in service—Rightly, rejected his claim—Provisions of Master circular dated 12.12.1990 on appointment on compassionate grounds, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways—Considered. [Master Circular dated 12.12.1990, on appointment on compassionate grounds, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Paras 1 (iv), 3, 5, 8 and 10(a)]. [Paras 18 to 21]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
By the Court.—Heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel appears for the respondents.
2. Late Ram Adhar, husband of Smt Ram Rati - petitioner No. 1 and father of Ashok Kumar - petitioner No. 2 was working in North-Eastern Railway. He died some time in the year 1983-84, on which Smt. Ram Rati - petitioner No. 1 applied for compassionate appointment. She was appointed as Medical Attendant in the Divisional Railway Hospital under the Chief Medical Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
3. After serving for 16 years, the petitioner No. 1 was declared medically unfit for all categories in the Railways due to hundred per cent loss of her vision, and consequently vide office order dated 24.8.2000, she was discharged from Railway Services with effect from 14.7.2000. At the time of her medical disablement, she had about four years left to serve before superannuation. Her son Ashok Kumar, petitioner No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment, claiming a right to be appointed on the disablement of her mother in terms of the Master Circular dated 12.12.1990 on Appointment on Compassionate Grounds issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of petitioner No. 1 stating that her son was her only support, especially as she had lost her eye-sight, however, he was unemployed and the family had to incur heavy medical expenses for her treatment before she was discharged from Railway Service. She submitted two more representations dated 10.8.2001 and 13.8.2001. Her request was rejected vide letter dated 5.10.2001 on the ground that the financial conditions did not represent that she was indigent.
4. The petitioners filed Original Application No. 157 of 2002. The Central Administrative Bench, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad allowed the Original Application vide judgment dated 9.11.2004 and while setting aside the order dated 5.10.2001, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2. The Tribunal found that, while considering the case of appointment on compassionate grounds, the authorities cannot take into consideration, the retirement/termination benefits given to the family of the deceased. The monthly pension of petitioner No. 1 should also not to be taken into consideration while considering the financial status of the applicants. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the possession of one bigha and five biswas agricultural land is too small to yield sufficient produce to sustain the family. The third ground that she had major son, who is dependent on petitioner No. 1, and the services at her credit was only two years and 9 months before retirement, also could not be the ground to reject her application.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) vide order dated 19.7.2005 again rejected the application.
6. In the Tribunal’s judgment dated 9.11.2004/13.1.2005 an observation has been made about seven cases for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of medically unfit persons. Out of these, in two cases there was only 28 days left in the employment. The facts and circumstances in which compassionate appointment was given in those cases were not presented before the Tribunal. In the absence of the relevant information, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered favorably only on the ground that the dependents of seven medially unfit persons were given compassionate appointment.
7. Sri Ashok Kumar son of the applicant Ram Rati was 26 years and 4 months old when his mother was invalidated. He has completed his studies in the year 1989 and has his own children. He was not dependent of his mother to be considered for compassionate appointment.
8. The petitioners filed Original Application No. 1050 of 2005 for quashing the order dated 19.7.2005. The Tribunal by order dated 13.7.2008 dismissed the application giving rise to this writ petition.
9
