Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3241
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Vijay Laxmi, JJ.
Kamlesh Maurya - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Its Secy. Ministry of Railway New - Respondent
Service Bench No. 645 of 2011
Decided On : 27-04-2016
For the Petitioner:- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent:- Pankaj Srivastava
The obligation to refer the matter to the General Manager for compassionate appointments within the specified time frame as per Master Circular No.16 is crucial and failure to do so renders the decision unsustainable.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Railways - Master Circular No.16 - Clause V (a) (vii), Clause V (a) (ii) - The court discussed the provisions of Master Circular No.16 regarding compassionate appointments and emphasized the time limits and conditions for making such appointments. The court highlighted the obligation to refer the matter to the General Manager if the application is made within ten years of the event, and the failure to do so rendered the Tribunal's order unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father, a Railways employee, passed away in 1990. The mother applied for compassionate appointment but was offered a post of Sweeper, which she declined, requesting an alternative equivalent post. The authorities delayed the matter, and when the petitioner became major, the mother requested appointment for her son. The claim was rejected on the ground of delay, leading to the petitioner filing a petition before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Railways were responsible for the delay in finalizing the matter and rejected their plea of delay. It emphasized that the authorities failed to consider the time limits and conditions for compassionate appointments as per Master Circular No.16, leading to the quashing of the Tribunal's order.
Issues: Delay in compassionate appointment, Obligation to refer matter to General Manager, Interpretation of Master Circular No.16
Ratio Decidendi: The Railways' delay in finalizing the compassionate appointment and their failure to refer the matter to the General Manager within the specified time frame rendered the Tribunal's order unsustainable.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the Tribunal and the order dated 16.1.2009 are quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Divisional Manager, Railways to refer the matter to the General Manager for a decision within four months.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the Railways.
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") as well as the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by opposite party no.2 has preferred this writ petition.
3. Father of the petitioner, who was working as Khalasi under the opposite parties died in harness on 24.12.1990 leaving behind the widow, two minor sons and two minor daughters. The mother applied for compassionate appointment, but she was offered appointment on Group-D post of Sweeper on 11.5.1992. The mother did not accept the aforesaid appointment and so, she did not join on Class-IV post, which was offered to her. She made a request that except the post of Sweeper, she may be allowed to work on any other equivalent post but that request of the petitioner's mother was never accepted and the matter remained pending with the opposite parties till 1996. In the year 1996, the petitioner became major and so, mother of the petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1998 indicating therein that her son may be given appointment and she does not want any compassionate appointment. Nothing was done by the authorities and thereafter, a letter was written by the mother of the petitioner on 15.2.2000. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid letter, claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the claim for compassionate appointment has been raised at a belated stage i.e. beyond five years. Nothing was said about the claim of the mother of the petitioner and neither any decision was communicated in that regard to the mother of the petitioner or the petitioner. After rejection of the claim of the petitioner on 16.1.2009, the petitioner preferred original application before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the original application vide judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 on the ground that compassionate appointment has been claimed at a belated stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Master Circular No.16 in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds dated 12.12.1990 has been ignored by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have failed to take into consideration the aforesaid circular and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if the appointment has been claimed after a period of five years and within a period of ten years, then it was incumbent upon the authorities to have referred the matter to the General Manager but the matter was never referred to the General Manager by opposite party no.2 i.e. Divisional Manager, Railways and he proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim was raised at a belated stage. The mother did not make claim within a period of one year as contemplated under Clause-V (a) (vii) and therefore, there was no necessity for referring the matter to the General Manager and the Divisional Manager was competent to take the decision.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The claim of compassionate appointment in respect of the mother of the petitioner was considered and she was offered appointment on the post of Sweeper by means of order dated 11.5.1992. Since the mother of the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, therefore, she did not accept the appointment on the post of Sweeper and she gave a letter to the opposite parties to give her appointment on any other equivalent post except the post of Sweeper. She was ready to accept appointment but that was never done by the authorities and no alternative post was offered to the mother of the petitioner. Mother of the petitioner continued to raise her grievance before the authorities time and again, but up till 1996 she was not offered any alternative appointment as claimed by her.
