UNION OF INDIA Vs. JEMS MANGSANG SANGMA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
UNION OF INDIA
Jems Mangsang Sangma
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 12.06.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 313 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has directed to provide temporary engagement to respondent Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma until vacancy is available for him in Group 'C' or 'D' posts for compassionate appointment. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the affidavit on record.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, one Oskar Marak, (Father of the sole respondent) was serving as Drilling Assistant (Group -'C' Employee) in North Eastern Region, of Geological Survey of India who died in harness on 24.12.2005 leaving behind 8(eight) members of his family including the eldest son Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma (respondent). On 4.04.2006, widow of the deceased employee made a representation to the petitioners/appellants authorities to provide compassionate appointment to one of her sons to rehabilitate the distressed family When after 2(two) months nothing was heard, the respondent Shri. Jems Mangsang Sangma filed an application registered as O.A. No. 156 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2006 with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the grievances of the present respondent to do the needful within a period of 3(three) months. Consequently, on 3.07.2006, the present respondent submitted his representation to the Local authority to provide him employment either in Group 'C' or Group 'D' post. He was informed on 23.08.2006 that his application has been sent for consideration to the authority concerned at Kolkata. However, on 23.12.2006, his prayer was turned down. In the circumstances, he (the present respondent) filed another application No. 313 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking compassionate appointment. The present petitioners filed a written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and pleaded that since there was no vacancy available, as such, no compassionate appointment can be made. They took shelter of Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2006 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, (for short DOPT) Govt. of India which provides that, compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum limit of 5% vacancies under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. It is further pleaded by the present petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2003 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India that, candidate's name for compassionate ground could have been kept under consideration only for 3(three) years and that too only after evaluating the financial conditions vis -a -vis other similar situated persons seeking compassionate appointment. The present petitioners further disclosed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) through written statement that vide letter dated 16.06.2006 request was made by them to the Govt. of India to increase the 5% quota to accommodate long list of persons seeking for compassionate appointment but the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India did not agree to increase the limit. It is also stated in the written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that there are other senior persons seeking compassionate appointment in the Department, as such, at present the request for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. In the additional written statement, certain documents were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants argued before this Court that, the Tribunal has erred in law in directing the petitioners to provide temporary engagement to the present respondent till his case is considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In support of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied in law laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai : (1996) 6 SCC 394; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, : (1996) 4 SCC 560 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, : (1994) 2 SCC 718.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.