Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) ASSAILING the order dated 6th December, 2007 passed in O.A. No. 936 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, this writ, application has been filed. By the impugned decision, the learned Tribunal below rejected the Original Application by confirming the decision passed by the authorities of Metal and Steel Factory, Ichapore. The impugned order before the learned Tribunal reads such: - No. 1630/3/LBGovt, of India,Ministry of Defence,Indian Ordnance FactoryMetal and Steel Factory,Ishapore,Dated 7.6.2006. From: The General Manger,To,Smt. Nirmala SahaWife of Late Shri Nitya Nanda Saha,Ex -OCC/14302, Bankim NagarP.O. Alipur Pin -743128, North 24 -Parganas.Sub: Employment assistance on compassionate ground.Ref. Your application dated 1.2.2002. With reference to your application for employment assistance on compassionate ground in respect of Shri Napen Saha, son of Late Nitya Nanda Saha of this factory, it is intimated that the case has been considered alongwith others on the basis of comparative merit points as assessed by a duty constituted Board of Officers (B.O.O.). But, it is regretted that due to non -availability of vacancies meant for the purpose no employment assistance could be offered by this factory. Further, as per the policy guideline of Ordnance Factory Board/Ministry of Defence, the maximum time, a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment, is 3 (Three) years from the date of death/MBD/Missing and if compassionate appointment cannot be offered during this period, the case is to be finally closed. In view of the above, it is regretted to intimate that your case has been treated as close and the same will not be considered again. Kindly note that no further communication will be made in this regard". The order of the learned Tribunal reads such: - "6.12.2007. -The applicant has appointed this Tribunal for issuing direction to the respondents to cancel the letter dated 7.6.2006 (page 21 of the OA) S in which it was stated by the respondent that the representation of the applicant for a job on compassionate ground cannot be approved after consideration. The applicant made a representation for providing him a job on compassionate ground after the death of his father in 2001. The respondents duly considered the representation and by their letter dated 24.7.2004 (Annexure A/4) they intimated the applicant that after taking into consideration the different parameters he was awarded 41 points only on the basis of 100 points scheme prescribed by the concerned department. It was intimated that the score will be taken into consideration for comparative assessment of his merits w.r.t. various other candidates, by the selection committee for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment. The -applicant was also advised to make an appeal to the appropriate authority if he feels aggrieved by the communication. The applicant made representation against this communication. Further by order of the respondents dated 16.10.2004 (Annexure A/6) it was intimated that the merit of the applicant's case was assessed by allotting points of various attributes in terms of the direction of the Ministry of Defence. The case was considered along with others against the vacancies available during the year 2004 and appointment could be made only to the applicant with merits higher than that of the applicant. The applicant continued to make representation against the decision and he received a further communication from the respondents on 7.6.2006 (Annexure A/9) which is as follows: - With reference to your application for employment assistant on compassionate ground in respect of Shri Napen Saha, Son of Late Shri Nitya Nanda Saha of this factory, it is intimated that the case has been considered along with others on the basis of comparative merit points as assessed by a duly constituted Board of Officers (B.O.O.). But, it is regretted that due to no -availability of vacancies meant for the purpose no employment assistance could be offered by this factory. Further, as per the policy guideline of Ordnance Factory Board /Ministry of Defence, the maximum time, a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment is 3 (Three) years from the date of death/MBO/Missing and if compassionate appointment cannot be offered during this period, the case is to be finally closed. In view of the above, it is regretted to intimate that your case has been treated as closed and the same will not be considered against. Kindly note that no further communication will be made in this regard. It is this order of 7.6.2006 which has been impugned by the applicant in this OA. The ground stated by the applicant can be summed up as follows: (1) The letter dated 7.6.2006 indicates that the representation of the applicant was considered in terms of the letter and guidelines of 2003 which afforded three opportunities for consideration. The applicant made a representation prior to the circular of 2003 and therefore deserves to be considered in terms of the previous circular. (2) He was not satisfied with the marks given by the respondents after considering the various attributes. He was also at a loss to see that he has been assigned different marks in different years of consideration. In one occasion he was awarded 41 marks. In another he was offered as low as 34. The applicant does no find any plausible explanation for such variation. (3) The applicant alleges that the pecuniary circumstances of the applicant's family was not duly and adequately considered by the respondents. If they had done so they have definitely found his case deserving. The learned Counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing also stated that it was open to the Tribunal to look into such discrepancies as pointed out and also ensure that the pecuniary circumstances of the applicant's family was justify and fairly considered by the respondents. The respondents have countered the allegation in their reply. The main arguments against the contention of the applicant has been stated in the paras from 3.1 to 3.8. 3.1. Shri Nityananda Saha, T. No. OCC/143, an employee of this factory, died on 28.7.2001 during service period after rendering 37 years service at the age of 59 years and 11 months. After the demise of Shri Saha, Smt. Nirmala Saha (the applicant No. 1 herein), wife of the deceased employee had submitted application dated 1.2.2002 with request to provide employment assistance to her fourth son Shri Nepal Saha on compassionate ground to maintain her family. 3.2. On receipt of the above mentioned application, letters were issued to Labour Office, Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore and Civil Authority (i.e. O/C Jagatdal P.S.) for verification of legal heir and financial condition of the family vide communication No. 1630/3/LB both dated 9.2.2002. Another letter was issued to applicant No. 1 on 9.2.2002 asking for forwarding declaration pertaining to movable and immovable property of the deceased/applicants. 3.3. MSF authority received the applicant's declaration regarding movable and immovable property on 7.3.2002 and verification reports from DI. WC(C) MSF, Ishapore and Civil Authority on 18.3.2002 and 4.5.2002 respectively. 3.4. The declaration dated 7.3.2002 advanced by applicant No. 1 and verification reports dated 18.3.2002 and 7.3.4.5.02 (Sent by DI. WC.MSF, Ishapore and O/C Jagatdal P.S.) were placed before the duly constituted Board of Officers (in short B.O.O) in the year 2002 for assessment of relative merit points for recommendation/decision regarding compassionate employment of applicant No. 2, and the Board taking into consideration of all parameters had awarded 41 points only based on a prescribed 100 point scale, but the case of the applicant was not considered in the year 2002 due to non -availability of vacancies available for the purpose of compassionate appointment which was only 5% of the total vacancies to be filed up through Direct Recruitment as per DOPT OM dated 9.10.1998. 3.5. It may be pointed out that in the year 2003 there were no vacancies available for purpose of compassionate appointment which was only 5% of the total vacancies to be filled up through Direct Recruitment as per DOPT OM dated 9.10.1998. 3.6. The case was farther placed before the B.O.O. in the year 2004 for consideration afresh along with the fresh individuals when the B.O.O. taking into consideration the revised procedure for assessment of relative merit points had awarded 41 points based on a prescribed 100 point scale. The above 41 points secured by the applicant was beyond the zone of consideration for offering appointment on compassionate ground against available 5% vacant posts meant for the purpose in the year 2004. It may be pointed out that the minimum cut off mark followed by the factory in the year 2004 for consideration of cases for appointment on compassionate ground against available 5% vacant posts meant for the purpose was 66, and as such employment assistance to applicant No. 2 could not be given in the year 2004. Accordingly, regret letter issued to applicant No. 1 on 24.7.2004 mentioning therein the fact behind issuance of the regret letter. 3.7. The case was further placed before the B.O.O. in the year, 2005 for consideration afresh along with the fresh individuals when the B.O.O. taking into consideration the revised procedure for assessment of relative merit points had awarded 40 points based on a prescribed 100 point scale but the case of the applicant was no considered in the year 2005 due to non -availability of vacancies available for the purpose of compassionate appointment which was only 5% of the total vacancies to be filled up through direct recruitment as per DOPT OM dated 9.10.1998.
(3.) THE case was further placed before the B.O.O. in the year 2006 for consideration afresh along with fresh individuals when the B.O.O. taking into consideration the revised procedure for assessment of relative merit points had awarded 34 points out of 100 point scale.;