NARESHKUMAR UGABHAI SUMARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, TO BE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is aggrieved by the long time taken by respondents for taking a final decision on his request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant's father was working as a sepoy in the Office of the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, at Ship Building Yard, Alang. He expired on 4.1.1998. The death was intimated to respondents by his mother vide Annexure A -2 letter dated 8.1.98 requesting for sanctioning the terminal benefits of his father. Thereafter, on 26.2.1998 vide Annexure 4, applicant, who was at that time 25 years old and married and with two children, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. After three months, the respondents sent Annexure A -5 communication dated 29.5.1998 calling for a formal application which applicant submitted on 15.6.1998 vide Annexure A -6. There was no reply from the respondents on Annexure A -6 application, therefore, on 8.3.1999 the applicant sent a reminder vide Annexure A -7. On 24.6.99, respondent No. 3 sent Annexure A -8 communication to applicant directing him to furnish details in a prescribed form as per revised instructions from Ministry. Accordingly, applicant again sent his request for compassionate appointment in prescribed form on 30.6.1999 vide Annexure A -9. On 18.7.2000, applicant was communicated the decision dated 16.5.2000 (Annexure A) vide Annexure A -11 communication from respondent No. 4. Thereupon, applicant sent a request on 24.7.2000 to respondent No. 3 for re -examination of the decision in Annexure A communication. Being a member of scheduled caste, he sent a request for re -consideration of Annexure A decision to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes vide Annexure A -13 representation dated 5.9.2000. Applicant's request for re -consideration of Annexure 'A' decision was transmitted by the Ahmedabad office of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to respondent No. 4 vide Annexure A -14 letter dated 13.9.2000. Thereafter, on 27.10.2000, respondent No. 4 informed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a copy to the applicant that the Annexure A -13 representation of the applicant was forwarded to the Ministry with due recommendation for re -consideration of the case. As no reply was forthcoming from respondents, applicant sent Annexure A -7 reminder to respondent No. 2 on 22.6.2001. On 18.7.2001 the Ahmedabad office of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes sent a reminder to the Government of India, Department of Revenue about the request of applicant. Applicant again represented the matter vide Annexure A -19 reminder dated 18.4.2002 to respondent No. 2. Thereafter respondent No. 4 requested respondent No. 3 to deal with the matter. On 18.10.2002, vide Annexure A -21, applicant contacted the aforesaid National Commission. Vide Annexure A -22 dated 4.2.2003, the Ahmedabad office of National Commission enclosing Annexure A -23 letter dated 24.12.2002 sent by respondent No. 3 informed the applicant that his request was rejected as he is over -age and since he was working as a casual labourer at the time of death of his father. On 24.4.2003, applicant vide Annexure A -24 again sent a representation to all respondents also and to some others. Thereafter he sent Annexure A -29 representation dated 30.11.2009 to respondent No. 5 to treat his case as a special case. He has been sending reminders on his previous communications to respondent No. 4 vide Annexure A -30 dated 10.2.2012, Annexure A -32 dated 10.3.2012 and Annexure A -34 dated 28.3.2012. Applicant contends that his family is in a poor and backward condition and that it is not possible to meet the expenses of his mother and other family members with the meager amount received from the pensionary benefits. He further states that it is because of the improper handling of his application and the repeated directions by the respondents to submit different applications and requests at different times his original request was not considered at the time when made this request soon after his father's death. He prays for the following reliefs: -

(2.) RESPONDENTS filed a written statement pointing out the absence of any legal right of the applicant for claiming appointment on compassionate grounds and also stating that the O.A. is highly belated.

(3.) MR . Rao highlighted the long process the applicant had to undergo because of the different directions of respondents to submit the application in proper form. Mr. Rao pointed out that applicant was forced to submit applications on three occasions. First soon after his father expired, subsequently when he was asked to submit in a prescribed form and thereafter again he was asked to submit in a form as per the revised instructions of the Ministry. Mr. Rao pointed out that when the applicant made first request on 26.2.1998, the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds issued by the DOPT was not in existence and it was put in place only thereafter when applicant sent his representation vide Annexure A -9 in 1999. As per the directions of the respondents applicant renewed his requests in the prescribed formats on two occasions. Mr. Rao submitted that the applicant would have been benefited if it had been considered on the date of his first application dated 26.2.1998 vide Annexure A -4.