Railway Board Circular RBE No.78/06 dated 14.6.2006, by which the dependants and eligible family members of medically decategorised staff became entitled for compassionate appointment CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, CIRCUIT SITTING: BILASPUR Original Application No.203/00258/2014 Bilaspur, this Friday, the 21st day of November, 2014 Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member Mr. Arvind J. Rohee, Judicial Member Salik Prasad, S/o Shri Manbodh Prasad, Aged about 67 years, Ex. Loco Shunter, CCC/BIA R/o Ward No.26, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai-3 Dt: Durg (CG) Pin 490021 - Applicant (By Advocate Shri B.P. Rao) V e r s u s 1. Union of India, Through : The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur 495004 (CG) 2. The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarters Office Bilaspur 495004 (CG) -Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.N.Pusty) (Date of reserving the order : 19.11.2014) ORDER By G.P. Singhal, AM.- By filing this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:- 8.2..to set aside the Respondents letter No.P-HQ/RCT/208/3/920 dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure A-6), in the interest of justice. 8.3...to pass an Order directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants son for grant of Compassionate in terms of RBE.78/2006 (Estt.Srl.123/2006) in the interest of justice, as the Tribunal pleased and passed in identical matter in OA.777/2011 dated 30.1.2013 and OA 290,292 & 657 of 2013 dated 5.2.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that the while he was working as Loco Shunter in the South East Central Railway (in short, SECR), CCC-Bhilai, was medically decategorised on 31.08.2001. Since he was not provided any alternative suitable post, he applied for voluntary retirement on 15.10.2001, which was accepted on 08.12.2001. After issuance of Railway Board Circular RBE No.78/06 dated 14.6.2006, by which the dependants and eligible family members of medically decategorised staff became entitled for compassionate appointment, the applicant submitted applications dated 09.03.2009 and 18.4.2009 for compassionate appointment of his dependent elder son. These applications, were however, rejected on 10.02.2010 by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Raipur, on the ground that the there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground to the eligible member of the employee who opted for voluntary retirement. Thus, the applicant preferred Original Application No.216/2010 before this Tribunal. This Original Application was disposed of, along with other 4 OAs, vide common order dated 23.12.10 (Annexure A-5) by remitting the matter back to the General Manager, SECR, for giving fresh consideration to the grievances of the applicant, in terms of Railway Board Circular dated 14.6.06, within a period of 90 days. However, the General Manager, SECR, Bilaspur, vide the impugned order dated 26.4.11 (Annexure A-6), rejected the applicants case for compassionate appointment. Hence, this Original Application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to the case in Original Application No.777/2011 decided by this Tribunal by the order dated 30.1.13 (Annexure A-7) and Original Applications Nos.290, 292 & 657 of 2013 decided vide common order dated 5.2.2014 and therefore the present Original Applications may also be decided on similar terms. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the above submission of the applicants counsel. However, he submitted that, long period has passed since the date of medical decategorisation and voluntary retirement in this case, and therefore, there is no justification to consider the applicants son for compassionate appointment, now, as the families have survived on their own for so much period without it. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith. 6. On perusal of the order dated 30.01.13, passed in Original Application No.777/11, we find that the applicant in this Original Application has similar case to that of Shri V. Kaladhar, the applicant in Original Application No.777/11. In that case, the applicants father was given voluntary retirement after being medically decategorised and, the application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 19.3.01. Thereafter, the applicants father did not take any action for quite some time, in view of the prevailing instructions of the Railway Board. However, when the Railway Board issued the Circular RBE No.78/06, which provides for grant of compassionate appointment in the case of employees medically decategorised after 18.01.2000, the applicants father submitted application for compassionate appointment of his dependent son Shri V. Kaladhar, in 2006. His application was rejected and therefore, he has also gone through similar process of re-submission of his application and finally rejection by the General Manager, SECR vide the order dated 26.04.11. Therefore vide the order dated 30.01.13, passed in Original Application No.777 of 2011 by the Tribunal, the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of RBE Circular No.78 of 06. Relevant paras 7 to 10 of the said order are reproduced below: (7). On perusal of the Railway Boards Circular No.78/2006, we find that according to it, appointment on compassionate ground may be given to the wife/wards/dependants of partially medically decategorised staff who seeks voluntary retirement. The circular further provides that all those employees, medically decategorised after issuance of Boards letter No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94, dated 18.01.2000, will also be covered under these instructions, and the only rider in this respect is that the cases, which have already been finalized in terms of certain earlier instructions of the Railway Board, are not to be reopened. Father of the applicant was also partially medically decategorised as he was still fit for certain lower grades of medical fitness. He had more than five years of service left and, therefore, he also fulfilled the eligibility condition at para 4(b) of this circular. (8). The respondents have rejected his case two times, first on the ground that the financial position of applicants father is strong due to receipt of retiral benefits and second time on the ground that the case was already finalized in terms of Railway Boards letter No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 18.01.2000, and therefore, in view of para 5 of the Railway Boards circular dated 14.06.2006 (RBE 78/2006) the case was not required to be reopened. The respondents have also mentioned in their reply that since the applicants father opted for voluntary retirement on his own volition, the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to the applicant. However, it is clear from the Railway Boards circular dated 14.06.2006 (RBE 78/2006) that none of the grounds taken by the respondents in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment are conforming to this Circular. According to the Railway Board Circular RBE 78/2006, compassionate appointment can be given to the wife/Wards/dependants of partially medically decategorised staff. It is obvious that this provision will apply to the persons, who were partially medically decategorised, and had, on their own, taken voluntary retirement, although they were entitled to get an alternative post or work on a supernumerary post till their superannuation. If these persons are not to be considered then who else could have been considered under this circular, as all other persons who accepted an alternative post or worked on a supernumerary post till superannuation were not entitled to compassionate appointment in any case. Thus, it is not clear how the respondents can treat the case of the applicant, as already finalized in terms of Boards letter No.E9NG)II/95/RC-1/94, dated 18.01.2000, as the applicants father was never extended the opportunity to work on an alternative post or supernumerary post till his superannuation. (9). As regards to the non-suitability of the applicant on account of the retiral benefits received by his father, we find that in this respect para-6 of the circular dated 14.06.2006 provides that, while considering such requests for compassionate ground appointment, the General Manager should satisfy himself on the basis of the balanced and objective assessment of the financial and the other conditions of the family. Since the respondents have already provided compassionate appointment to the son of another Electrical Driver, Mr. R. Narayana, who had exactly similar conditions, the case of the applicant also deserves to be considered sympathetically by the respondents. (10). In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure A-11) and direct the respondents to reconsider the case for grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant, in terms of RBE 78/2006, and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, while keeping in view the observations made by us in this order. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.4.11 and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment to his son in terms of Railway Board Circular RBE 78/06 and pass reasoned orders in this regard within a period of three months, from the date of communication of this order, while keeping in view the observations made by us in the order dated 30.1.13 in Original Application No.777/11, as well as in this order. 8. Thus, the Original Application is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (Arvind J. Rohee) (G.P.Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member rkv 3 Sub: compassionate appointment OA No.203/00258/2014 Page 3 of 4
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:47:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015