0

Madras HC Says Married Daughter Is Not Entitled To Appeal The Rejection Of Compassionate Appointment on ground of Dependency And Financial Hardship.

blog, Blog , , , ,

TITLE: A Chinnaponnu Vs.  Union of India and Others

Decided On: August 30, 2023.

W.P.No.19408 of 2019 and M.P.No.18905 of 2019.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Krishna kumar and P.B. Balaji. 

Facts:

The petitioner’s (Chinnaponnu) husband who worked as a Gang mate in southern railway, died in harness on 07.07.2010 leaving behind the 1st petitioner and his two daughters and one son. The 2nd petitioner herein is the daughter of the deceased employee. Since his brother gave consent to apply for a job compassionate appointment, she made request to the southern railway seeking compassionate appointment. The said request was rejected by the respondent department. Even though the 2nd petitioner has preferred two original applications one after other and got favourable orders, the respondent department did not consider her request and rejected the same. Therefore, the 2nd petitioner has filed 3rd original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 1417 of 2017 and by order dated 17.11.2016, the Original Application was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The daughter, Venkateswari, submitted that since her brother and sister gave consent to apply for a compassionate appointment, she made a request to the Southern Railway seeking a compassionate appointment but it was rejected by the department. It was submitted that Venkateswari was taking care of the entire family. Thus, it was argued that merely on the ground that she was married, the request for an appointment was rejected. The Railways opposed the plea submitting that Venkateswari’s request for a compassionate appointment was rejected not because she was married but for the reason she did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Railway Board for offering a compassionate appointment. Relying on the Railway Board Letter dated February 3, 1981, it was submitted by the authorities that while considering the married daughter for compassionate appointment, the criteria for whether the married daughter will be the breadwinner for the bereaved family has to be examined. It was submitted that as per the Railway Board Letter, if there are no other wards to be looked after, there was no justification for considering a married daughter for a compassionate appointment. The court noted that Venkateswari got married in 2006, four years before her father’s death. The court also noted that her brother and sisters were also married and her mother, i.e. wife of the deceased employee was receiving a family pension of Rs.18,734 and had no other minor children to take care of. Thus, the court observed that the application was rejected not because of Venkateswari marital status but based on the financial status of the deceased’s family. The court also emphasized that the Supreme Court in various decisions has held that the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle the family to compassionate employment, the financial condition of the family has to be examined by the authorities.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court finally concluded that even though daughters of the deceased are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment regardless their marital status and appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the family.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Dismissed the writ petition and upheld the verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Hansraj vs Commissioner of police & Anr.

Judgment delivered on: July 12, 2023

 + W.P.(C) 6490/2021

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application No.4666/2014 (‘OA’, for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by three persons including the petitioner herein.

Facts of the case

The ruling dated March 10, 2014, which allowed the petitioner(s) to argue that their training period should be counted when they were promoted to Head Constable (Assistant Wireless Operator) (‘HC (AWO)’, was challenged in the OA by the petitioner(s) therein was rejected for the purpose of increment(s).

The petitioner Hansraj (who filed this case) was first hired as a constable on August 7, 1991, and on August 7, 2000, he was elevated (absorbed) to the position of HC (AWO) in the Delhi Police’s Communication Unit. The appointment of Radio (Wireless) and MT Staff is governed by Rule 17 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (the “Rules of 1980,” for short), and the appointment of AWOs and Teleprinter Operators (HC) is governed by Rule 17-B(IV). The appointment of Assistant Wireless Operator Grade-III (HC) and Teleprinter Operator Grade-III (HC) in the Delhi Police is covered by Standing Order No. 223/86, which is in line with Rule 17-B(IV) of the modified Rules, 1986, read in conjunction with Rule 13(ii) of the Rules of 1980. Following completion of the VHR R.T. Course Grade-III and six months of radio operator experience, confirmed (Matriculate) Constables were to be given the opportunity to be promoted to the coveted position.

According to the office order, a preliminary selection test was held, and those who received 33% or higher on each paper were chosen to enrol in the AWOs / Teleprinter Operator (HC) programme for a total of nine months, including three months of practical training, in batches. The constables are expected to take a test administered by the Trade Test Board, designated by the Commissioner of Delhi Police, after completing the AWO/TPO Grade-III Course, and they must receive the appropriate score in accordance with Standing Order No. 223/86.

According to Rules from 1980, the names of the constables chosen by the DPC are listed on List B (Technical) in the order of their seniority in the rank of Constable in their respective categories A promotion order is then issued in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980.

Analysis of the court

The order dated March 10, 2014, which was based on the petitioner/applicants’ representations on October 8, 2013 and November 27, 2013, was challenged before the Tribunal. In their representations, they requested that the training period for promotion to the post of HC (AWO) be counted for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of the concerned post.

AWO/Teleprinter Operator (HC) Course for a period of nine months, including three months of practical training in batches according to the merit list, followed by AWO/Teleprinter Operator (HC) Course for a period of nine months, including three months of practical training in batches according to the merit list, which is also followed by a test conducted by the Trade Test Board, may be stated here. According to the respondents’ position, which was noted above, it is clear that the final promotion order to the post

Accordingly, promotion orders are issued and the chosen constables are added to List B (Technical) in the order of their seniority. Direct recruiting does not follow the aforementioned process. There is unquestionably no reason to calculate the training time for the purpose of awarding increment(s), much less on the post of Head Constable, when the constable is still in the training phase and has not been officially or by an order promoted to that position. Only after receiving an order of promotion as HC (AWO) would a constable begin serving in the position of head constable. The petitioner’s claim that the training duration is not taken into account for the purpose of increment(s) in the grade of Constable

In other words, the petitioner was working as a constable during the training period rather than a Head Constable; as a result, the time would only be relevant for the purpose of awarding an increase on the position of Constable and not Head Constable. We previously discussed the respondents’ position on why a directly hired HC (AWO) / Teleprinter Operator is entitled to the scale of Head Constable; specifically, that the straight recruit Head Constable must complete training after being hired as HC (AWO) / Teleprinter Operator.

The Madras High Court’s ruling in Nuclear Power Corporation & Anr. (supra), in which OMs dated October 22, 1990 and March 31, 1992 were mentioned, is not applicable to the facts of this case, especially in light of the position under the Rules of 1980. In the aforementioned instance, the Department of Atomic Energy; Madras Atomic Power Project, an enterprise of the Government of India, issued an invitation for applications to the post of Stipendiary Trainees under several employment categories. A number of applicants were chosen and hired as stipendiary trainees with combined monthly compensation. The trainees were assimilated and assigned to the regular positions of Tradesman-B, bearing the normal time scale of pay, and Apprentice after successfully completing the training term.  In accordance with how well they performed during the training time, they were also granted one or two increments. According to the DoP&T’s OM dated October 22, 1990, a person who is chosen for a regular appointment and who must complete training before officially taking over the post may be treated as working for the purpose of receiving raises during the training period, whether they are receiving pay or a stipend. The benefit in question was given starting on October 1, 1990. A second OM, issued March 31, 1992, extended the same benefit to government employees who had received the training on or after January 1, 1986, with real benefits beginning on October 1, 1990. This OM was the one that came after the first.

Here, it is not the case. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned OMs apply to the position of HC (AWO)/Teleprinter Operator when the appointment is made through direct recruiting, but not to the position of HC (AWO) when the appointment is made through promotion.

 Therefore, we believe that the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the OA cannot be criticised. We find no justification for interfering with the Tribunal’s contested order. The writ petition is rejected because it lacks any merit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement