Union Of India v. N.Arunan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.132 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.196 of 2018 1.Union of India rep.by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin-628 001. ...
Petitioners -vs1.N.Arunan 2.Central Administrative Tribunal rep.by its Registrar, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104.
...
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in O.A.No.1055 of 2015 and quash the order dated 14.07.2017 as unsustainable. For Petitioners ::
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents ::
Mr.R.Malaichamy for R1 R2-Tribunal
ORDER
(Made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) The father of the first respondent herein, who was employed under the petitioner-Department, died on 19.08.2003 leaving behind his wife, mother and four children. Three of the four children (including the first respondent) were minors at that time. The eldest daughter was the only major child and unmarried at the time of the death of the father of the first respondent.
After obtaining consent from the family members, the first respondent made representations seeking compassionate appointment and his request was rejected by order dated 14.06.2012 on the ground that he was found less indigent as per the Relative Merit Points and also on the ground of nonavailability of vacancies within 5% direct recruitment vacancy. 2.The first respondent filed an application before the second respondent Tribunal in O.A.No.1055 of 2015 praying to quash the orders rejecting grant of compassionate appointment by the authorities and to direct the petitioners to appoint the first respondent to anyone of the posts in the appellantDepartment, considering his educational qualification. 3.
The claim of the first respondent before the Tribunal was that as per the merit points, he has to be awarded 86 points, but he had been wrongly awarded 71 points. According to him, his prayer for reconsideration of his economic status has not been responded to. According to him, since he passed 10th Standard, he should have been appointed as Postman and he should have been shown to have got more than 71 merit points.
4.After a detailed consideration of the issue, the Tribunal passed the order impugned herein, observing that had the first respondent been awarded merit points without ignoring his dependency status and minority status, he would have been entitled for additional points above 71, which certainly would have fetched his appointment, since he had more than the merit points of 75 of the last selected candidate for the post of Postman. It was also observed that the rejection of the first respondent's case in the year 2012 was wrongly made and people with lower merit points than the first respondent for the post of Postman and those with cut off merit points equal to 91 for the post of MTS which the first respondent has also obtained, were given appointment, but the first respondent was denied appointment in both categories.
Thus, observing that there was wrong assessment in respect of the award of merit points in respect of the first respondent, allowed the original application, awarding 10 extra merit points towards each of the heads "Number of dependents" and "Number of minor children", and also directing the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent for the various acts of oversight and omissions and for delaying grant of timely justice to the first respondent in 2012 itself.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners/Department, vehemently argued that the award of extra merit points by the Tribunal is unsustainable, since as per the orders issued by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, communicating the recommendations of the Circle Relaxation Committee, vide Letter No.REP/47-3/2012 dated 08.06.2012, the case of the first
respondent was properly considered and the relative merit points assessed to him was 71. He also submitted that the case of the first respondent was not recommended on the ground of less indigent as per the relative merit points compared to candidates whose applications were processed and recommended for the post of Postman / MTS cadre and for want of 5% direct recruitment vacancy. He also submitted that the Tribunal at least ought not to have awarded extra merit points for two categories. 6.The learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail in proper perspective and has arrived at the conclusion awarding 10 extra merit points towards each of the heads "Number of dependents" and "Number of minor children", totalling to 91 merit points and hence the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8.The claim of the first respondent before the Tribunal was that as per the merit points, he has to be awarded 86 points, but he had been wrongly awarded 71 points. According to him, his prayer for reconsideration of his economic status has not been responded to. It appears that the cut-off merit points fixed was 75 in respect of Postman category and 91 for MTS category. After a detailed analysis of the issue, the Tribunal has awarded 10 extra merit points towards each of the heads "Number of dependents" and "Number of minor children", and arrived the total merit points at 91. If the same is taken into consideration, it is apparent that the persons who were given appointment in 2012, were having only less merit points than the first respondent.
The Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and arrived at the relative merit points at 91, in respect of the first respondent. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners/ Department is that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded 10 extra points to each of the two categories. If that argument is taken into consideration and if 10 extra relative merit points are awarded for only one category, even then, it works out to 81 and in that circumstance, the first respondent should have been considered for the category of Postman. In view of the stated circumstances, as such the order passed by the Tribunal has to be upheld.
9.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioners are directed to convene the CRC meeting and reconsider the case of the first respondent on the basis of the revised weightage points arrived at as per the guidelines, and then consider grant of compassionate appointment after following the laid down procedures, as directed by the Tribunal, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104.
+1cc to Mr.R.Malaichamy, Advocate sr.no.35474 +1cc to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate sr.no.35402 W.P.No.132 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.196 of 2018 jp(co) nr 19/06/2018